Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

Milk

Mr. Stodart: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food why the Government do not intend to encourage the expansion of milk production in the United Kingdom for manufacturing purposes.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Fred Peart): More milk will be available for manufacturing as a result of the expansion of the dairy herd which is wanted in order to meet beef requirements; and this will help to meet the growing consumption of milk products. But the production of milk specifically for manufacturing purposes is not generally economic in this country.

Mr. Stodart: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the words in this Question are the exact words taken from the Commonwealth Intelligence Bulletin on the subject of the recently concluded New Zealand Trade Agreement and that they are quite incompatible with the statement in the National Plan? Is not this a case of the right hon. Gentleman saying one thing to the New Zealanders and another to the home farmer?

Mr. Peart: It is not and the hon. Member should not try to assume that. I have explained to New Zealanders and to our own home producers that the National Plan stands and that by 1970 we shall aim to achieve the demand for more food by an expansion of the dairy herd and which will inevitably result in more by-products of milk.

Hill Sheep Subsidy

Mr. Stodart: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will increase the hill sheep subsidy as a means of offsetting the low prices paid for this year's lamb crop as a result of the Government's credit restrictions.

Mr. Peart: I cannot agree that the Government's credit policy has had this effect.

Mr. Stodart: Is the right hon. Gentleman quite unaware of the various comments by authoritative sources to that effect? Is not this again a monumental example of the Minister's complete indifference to this very grave problem?

Mr. Peart: I am well aware of authoritative Conservative reports, or thoughts from the hon. Member, which mislead people because there are no credit difficulties in the sense described by the hon. Member. I hope that the hon. Member will have read very carefully the Bank of England's statement made only yesterday.

Mr. Dalyell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Government policy is being made the excuse for many matters?

Mr. Peart: That is true. The hon. Member who leads for the Scottish Unionist Party has, I believe, done a disservice to the farming community by talking down the market.

Mr. Monro: Does not the Minister realise that an immediate increase in the hill ewe subsidy is the only means of injecting money into the industry?

Mr. Peart: The hon. Member must be aware of the accepted practice. This is a matter which we decide at the Annual Review.

Mr. Mackintosh: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, while we attach no great significance to the reason given by the Opposition for this, it is one of many reasons? Will my right hon. Friend say a word of encouragement to hill sheep farmers and bear them in mind in the next Review?

Mr. Peart: I think I have done more in my Reviews for hill farming than did the previous Administration. At the last


Review we increased the hill sheep subsidy by ls. I am aware that there are problems; and we are considering them. Certainly I will note these when we have discussions with the Union at the next Review.

Bacon

Mr. Drayson: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has for increasing the supply of home-cured bacon, particularly in Yorkshire.

Mr. J. E. B. Hill: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he is aware of the present difficulties of the British bacon industry; and what action he is taking to prevent its further decline.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is aware that the supply of bacon pigs is not adequate for the proper working of bacon factories; and what steps he is taking to increase the supply.

Sir D. Renton: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps the Government propose to take to encourage the quality bacon curing industry.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to assist pig producers and the bacon industry.

Mr. James Johnson: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he is taking to increase the supply of home-cured bacon, especially in Humberside and East Yorkshire.

Mr. Peart: I am aware of the difficulties facing the bacon industry and of the fall in bacon production. Representatives of the curers have discussed the situation with me. Their difficulties largely stem from the decline in the number of pigs, and I have therefore taken action to encourage early expansion of pig production.

Mr. Hill: Since the economic circumstances have changed so drastically, surely they require much prompter action? Why is the Minister allowing the British bacon industry to be squeezed towards

extinction, especially at a time when home demand for quality products is unsatisfied, and at a time when we need to keep our balance of payments from being unnecessarily strained?

Mr. Peart: The hon. Gentleman is obviously aware of what we call the flexible guarantee system and the operation of the middle band. I thought the fundamental problem was to increase the supply of pigs, and because of this I announced recently at Harper Adams that we would raise the middle band by 400,000. I expect this will have the desired effect and will create confidence from the point of view of the producer, which in the end will affect the whole industry.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Does the Minister really think that raising the middle band without reference to what prices are going to be will rectify the situation? Is he not aware that bacon curers at the moment are losing 30s. a pig and that his reply this afternoon demonstrated his complete failure to understand the situation.

Mr. Peart: I am rather surprised that the hon. Member said that, in view of his knowledge of the industry. Obviously, raising the middle band will affect the price.

Sir D. Renton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his promise of early action would be welcomed; but apart from raising the middle band, what action is he going to take? Is he aware that, unless he takes urgent action, we shall completely lose our home markets to foreign suppliers?

Mr. Peart: The right hon. and learned Member is aware that the signing of the actual contracts is something which is arranged commercially between producers and the industry. The Government are not involved in this. Where I think I can do something is to increase the supply of pigs. For this reason, I believe the action I have taken is the right one.

Mr. Johnson: Accepting the need to honour obligations with Danish bacon imports, could the Minister tell the House who is actually responsible for signing bacon contracts at home?

Mr. Peart: As I said in reply to the right hon. and learned Member for


Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton), the signing of the contracts is a matter for producers and the curing industry as a commercial proposition. Hon. Members opposite have never wished me to interfere in such commercial arrangements.

Mr. Farr: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, whilst this year's position is bad enough, it is next year's contracts, which should be negotiated now, about which we on this side of the House are very concerned? Is he aware that many contracts are not being entered into for next year's supplies?

Mr. Peart: There is a problem here, That is why I want to give confidence to the producers to get pig production rising. This is how the system has operated. I believe that we can achieve this. I am still hoping to discuss this matter with people who have some constructive suggestions to make in the industry itself. I am talking about the curing industry. I have rejected the idea of a direct subsidy.

Mr. Peter Mills: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, in view of the serious pork and bacon situation, why he has not lifted the middle band on pigs at once, thus relieving the situation.

Mr. Peart: Producers' returns in recent months have risen considerably through restoration in full of the cuts previously made under the flexible guarantee. But production has been slow to respond. I want producers to have confidence to increase production. I have therefore given an assurance that they can increase marketings by over a million above the current annual rate without fear that the flexible guarantee will operate against them. This gives an immediate all clear for expansion.

Mr. Mills: Surely the Minister realises that his action will be too late. What is needed is action now if the situation is to be retrieved. Unless the Minister is very careful, he will go down in history as the Minister who surrendered the bacon industry to the Danes.

Mr. Peart: The hon. Member must know that what I have done has been approved and welcomed by the National Farmers' Union. Immediately I made my announcement, it was approved by the Union.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Does the Minister agree that, even with the middle band increased by 400,000, farmers could well be fined for over-production, although they are producing less than the British bacon industry needs? Is not this ridiculous?

Mr. Peart: I cannot accept the logic of that. I think that what I have done will help to restore confidence, and it means a go-ahead to produce.

Mr. W. Baxter: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the difficulty of the bacon industry apart from that from the farming community? If he looks into the matter, he will find without doubt that quite a number of bacon producers are on the verge of bankruptcy owing to the losses which have been incurred over the past six months. This state of affairs cannot be allowed to continue.

Mr. Peart: As I said in replying to a previous Question, I am aware of the difficulties. I have met the curers. They would have liked a direct subsidy. I cannot accept this. I believe that the answer is that we must increase pig production. This is what we are doing.

Horticultural Holdings (Houses)

Mr. John Wells: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will instruct his local officers to give support to suitable horticultural growers' planning applications for the erection of farm houses on horticultural holdings of less than 30 acres which is the present minimum for general farming, in view of the fact that four acres is considered to be a viable unit under the Horticultural Improvement Schemes.

Mr. Loveys: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assistance he will give to the housing problem of horticultural growers who are moving in large numbers from the Lea Valley and other parts of the country to districts which are now more favourable for the industry.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Mackie): Our officers support planning applications for houses on horticultural holdings, provided they are essential for the efficient cultivation of the land in the long term. The holdings must be viable, but they can be


far less than 30 acres. We have no evidence that housing problems are making it impossible for horticultural growers in general to find suitable areas where they can settle.

Mr. Wells: While it is generally true that general agricultural holdings are getting larger, it is also true that intensive horticultural holdings are tending in many cases to get smaller. I, therefore, must urge the Minister to look at this more closely. I ask him to consider the specific cases which I sent to his right hon. Friend, and to look far more sympathetically at smaller holdings which are considered to be viable.

Mr. Mackie: I will bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Mr. Loveys: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that there is very real need for special help where the horticultural industry is increasing, as it is on the south coast? Is he aware that when his Ministry is approached by local authorities his own Ministry's reply is almost invariably "No comment", which is not very enlightening and is interpreted in different ways by different authorities? Does he not think that he ought to give definite support to this particular aspect of the industry at this time?

Mr. Mackie: As the hon. Member knows, we give definite support to houses for key workers, but when horticulturists apply for extra housing it is entirely the responsibility of local planning authorities. Unless we have a long-term interest from the point of view of agriculture and horticulture, we make this "No comment" reply. I know that it is sometimes interpreted as though we are against it, but we are not. We are simply neutral and we try to make this as plain as possible to local planning authorities. I know the difficulties.

Catering Establishments (Charges)

Mr. Corfield: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the trend of charges in catering establishments since 20th July.

Mr. Hamling: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what inquiries he has made into rising prices in catering establishments; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. McNamara: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is satisfied that all increases in prices in the hotel and catering industry do not infringe the conditions of the prices and incomes policy; and if he will publish the names of those establishments where the increases are excessive.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. James Hoy): Since the introduction of S.E.T., some caterers have put up prices on selected items; others have introduced a surcharge. We have urged firms to absorb as much as they can, but we recognise that some increases are unavoidable. We investigate any that appear excessive.

Mr. Corfield: Cannot the hon. Gentleman give some indication of the percentage increase due to the Selective Employment Tax? Would he bear in mind that the Chief Secretary, during the proceedings on the Finance Bill, gave some highly optimistic estimates of somewhere about 1 per cent. or 2 per cent.? Would he not agree that those estimates were entirely misleading?

Mr. Hoy: I cannot remember offhand, but I think it was said that the figure would not exceed 3 per cent. The Caterers Association of Great Britain has been co-operative in this respect and, indeed, it has told all its members that, if any changes have to be made, they ought to be made in line with the White Paper and they should not claim more.

Mr. Hamling: Will my hon. Friend, if he discovers where excessive increases are being made, take the same action as was taken with the laundries?

Mr. Hoy: It is a little more difficult in the catering industry, where there is a wider range of different types of hotels and establishments, but I can assure my hon. Friend that when we get cases of this kind we take the matter up directly with the people concerned.

Mr. McNamara: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in some cases the increase has been as much as 18 per cent. and that the Selective Employment Tax has been blamed for this? Would he not do the Government service, as well as consumers, if he were to publish the names of those establishments that are so blatantly defeating the policy?

Mr. Hoy: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for sending me some of the cases involved. If he sends me details, I will examine them. In some instances we have had an immediate response by writing to firms.

Mr. Goodhew: Under what authority does the Minister write to these caterers asking about the prices they charge?

Mr. Hoy: In a friendly way, and in the interests—[Interruption.]—indeed, in a very friendly way. Surely hon. Members opposite are not suggesting that we should not take action to protect the consumers of this country.

Mr. Shinwell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that British Transport Hotels are charging, because of the S.E.T.—although that might be only a pretext—an extra 2s. for every meal? Is not this an exorbitant charge, and is my right hon. Friend aware that I complained to the Ministry of Transport and received a very dusty answer?

Mr. Hoy: My right hon. Friend is aware that I cannot be held responsible for answers coming from another Department, but whenever we are approached regarding prices we take up the matter with the Department concerned or, as I have told the House, we communicate direct with the people concerned.

Fat Cattle

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is aware that the Eire Government is paying a special headage subsidy on the export of fat cattle to Great Britain; and what action he is taking to prevent beef prices in Great Britain being depressed by these subsidised imports.

Mr. Hawkins: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will take all necessary steps to halt the imports of beef from the Irish Free State and the Argentine, to assist in mitigating the losses being suffered by United Kingdom beef producers.

Mr. Marten: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is aware of the effect of the seamen's strike and Argentine and Irish imports upon the United Kingdom beef producers; and what action he proposes to take.

Mr. Peart: There has been a substantial fall in prices for fat cattle since the early summer. Imports of fresh and chilled beef in the July/September quarter were not unusually high. Imports of fat cattle from the Irish Republic have risen, although imports of stores this year have not. I have met the Irish Minister of Agriculture twice recently and made clear to him my objection to the subsidy paid on fat cattle in the Republic. He assured me that this will not continue after the end of this month. In general, I am satisfied that this temporary set back in the market does not justify any exceptional measures against imports.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Does the Minister think it right that British producers should have to compete against subsidised imports from overseas? Does he not realise that meetings alone are not enough? What is needed at this time is action to defend the interests of British producers.

Mr. Peart: I hope the hon. Gentleman realises that we have always had a free market here. The market is there for people to compete in it. If hon. Members are saying to me what they have never said before, namely, that we should end the free market, that is another argument.

Mr. Hawkins: Is not the Minister aware that beef prices over the last four or five weeks have fallen by between £1 and 25s. per cwt. and that even the store cattle which can be purchased at about £7 per cwt. are not being bought for winter feeding? Does not he consider this an extremely serious situation? Does he not agree that the Irish Agreement is wholly against the best interests of United Kingdom beef producers and, whilst not blaming him personally——

Mr. Speaker: Order. A supplementary question must not be too long.

Mr. Peart: The hon. Gentleman must know that fat cattle are not covered by the Irish Agreement. Carcase meat is dealt with, and the store position is also covered. But the position of fat cattle coming in is not affected by the agreement. On his other point, the hon. Gentleman must be aware that our producers still get reasonable returns because of the working of the guarantee.

Mr. Marten: Was the Irish subsidy put on without prior consultation with this Government? Has the Minister made representations about that rather regrettable subject? What is the minimum period of domicile for Irish beef in this country before it attracts the subsidy?

Mr. Peart: I have made representations and this was one of the matters upon which I expressed my views very strongly. I felt that it was right to do so.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: Is it not right that Clause 13(2) of the Treaty allows an escape in this respect, where the subsidy as applied by the Irish Government is in itself onerous? Does not that subsection allow a renegotiation of the Clause? Does not Clause 8 of the Treaty contain provision against dumping?

Mr. Peart: I cannot say that that is the situation without possessing all the facts. I recognise my hon. Friend's interest in this and also his knowledge of the legal implications. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I am trying to answer. I wish hon. Members would listen carefully. I will look into this. As far as I am aware, there is no question here of a breach of the Treaty.

Mr. Godber: Is the Minister aware that I have been trying to exercise great restraint because I hope to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, tomorrow, and to discuss a number of these matters, when I shall be highly critical of the Minister? However, one of his answers on this has brought me to my feet, because he said that producers were getting a reasonable return. He knows that under the last Price Review there was a very substantial abatement and that this is affecting producers.

Mr. Peart: Only yesterday I discussed with the union matters affecting abatement. I am aware of the problem. There in no doubt that the guarantee is working effectively.

Mr. Bence: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the reduction in the price of fat cattle in this country has not been reflected in reductions in butchers' shops? Therefore, would he not instigate an inquiry into the techniques of marketing of beef to see if the benefit of that fall in the price of beef cannot be conferred on housewives?

Mr. Peart: My hon. Friend must be aware of my desire to get my Agriculture Bill through. This is important, because the Meat Commission will deal with precisely the point raised by my hon. Friend. Only yesterday I met the Joint Consultative Council of the meat industry. These are matters I am taking up further with the retail industry.

Pork Meat and Sausages (Imports)

Mr. Peter Mills: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many tons of pork meat and sausages have been imported per month from East Germany and Poland over the last year.

Mr. Hoy: From East Germany, none, Sir. From Poland, for the 12 months ended August, 1966, monthly averages were: Pork, none; Sausages, 70 tons; Bacon, 4,230 tons; other pigmeat products, 580 tons.

Mr. Mills: Does not the Joint Parliamentary Secretary realise that this is just the beginning of a trickle because of the levies which are going up in the Common Market countries and that this trickle will develop into a flood unless something is done immediately and that we shall become the dumping ground for many of the products from Europe?

Mr. Hoy: The figures do not bear out that assertion. The one the hon. Gentleman talks about—in the main, bacon—is done under the bacon agreement.

Brucellosis

Sir A. V. Harvey: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps, if any, are being taken to prevent dairy farmers, knowing their cattle are infected with brucellosis, disposing of them in open markets.

Mr. John Mackie: At the present time under the Epizootic Abortion Order of 1922 it is an offence to sell in a market, or to sell privately without informing the buyer in writing, any cow or heifer which the seller knows to have calved prematurely within the preceding two months.
I realise that this does not include all infected animals. The first step is to provide a supply of brucella-free replacements through the voluntary Brucellosis Eradication Scheme which my right hon. Friend announced on 26th July and of


which he is giving further details in a Written Answer today. I shall reconsider the position when this scheme has made significant progress. [Vol. 732, c. 237–8.]

Sir A. V. Harvey: Is the Joint Parliamentary Secretary aware that his right hon. Friend's scheme is just about useless and that this practice is taking place all over the country? I will give him the name of the place where it is happening. Is he aware, further, that over 200 people in my constituency are to some degree suffering from this dreadful disease, although the Minister said last year that only 120 people in the whole of Britain were affected? What do the Government intend to do to alleviate this suffering?

Mr. Mackie: I disagree with the hon. Gentleman's statement that my right hon. Friend's scheme is useless. I have pointed out before to the hon. Gentleman that a full-scale slaughter scheme would cost £40 million to £50 million. I am very doubtful whether hon. Members opposite would agree to taxation to raise that figure.
As regards the hon. Gentleman's comment on the figures, these are the figures for reported cases. We can only give figures which are reported by the medical profession or by the Ministry of Health. The figures the hon. Gentleman has produced may be correct, but he would need to support them with medical evidence and everything else.

Irish Cattle

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he is satisfied with the operation of the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Agreement in so far as it affects the marketing of Irish fat and store cattle in this country; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Peart: Neither the Anglo/Irish Free Trade Agreement nor the associated Agreement on Store Animals and Carcase Meat, includes any obligations specifically related to fat cattle. As for store cattle, the Irish Republic have undertaken to use their best endeavours, consistent with the circumstances of the trade, to ensure a certain minimum annual level of supply. But the Agreements have been in operation for only four months, and it is too early to judge

the working of the provisions on store cattle.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Would not the Minister agree that the export subsidy given on fat cattle by the Irish Government amounts to dumping of fat cattle on the British market? Is it not quite inadequate to say that he has made representations to the Irish Government when this has had no effect in stopping these exports at all until the end of this month? What effect will this have on achieving the meat production target in the National Plan, or has that gone out of the window like the rest?

Mr. Peart: I explained very fully on a previous Question the position on fat cattle and what the agreement really means, and I cannot go beyond that. I have answered very fully, and what I have said is very satisfactory.

Sir Knox Cunningham: Is it true that under the Anglo-Eire Agreement the British taxpayer will be called to pay around £10 million a year for Eire agriculture?

Mr. Peart: The hon. and learned Member knows full well what the agreement means in relation to what will be paid on carcase meat and also the effect of shortening the period for stores from three months to two months. It does mean aid, but the hon. and learned Member is not against the agreement, and the Conservative Opposition approved it because they did not oppose it.

Mr. Godber: That is a really outrageous statement by the Minister. He knows about the opposition full well. Does he not know that the Opposition were very critical indeed? I criticised it in personal conversation and made speeches most strongly criticising it in the country.

Mr. Peart: I hope then that the right hon. Gentleman will convey his views to his own leader, and I should like to know if the Tory Party is against the free trade agreement between Eire and this country. It has never expressed opposition in principle.

Mr. Godber: If the Minister challenges me on this I ask him to look at the speech I made in Shrewsbury on 7th January last. I shall remind him of it particularly tomorrow.

Mr. Peart: The right hon. Member does not then represent the views of Her Majesty's Opposition. I challenge the Leader of the Opposition to say that he will repeal the Anglo/Irish Agreement.

Dr. Gray: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether the British subsidy for beef cattle exported from Eire to this country is payable for dead carcasses or for cattle live on the hoof.

Mr. Hoy: Under the Anglo Irish Free Trade Area Agreement, we undertook to pay annually a sum equivalent to the average U.K. guarantee payment on carcase beef imported from the Republic of Ireland up to a maximum of 25,000 tons.

Dr. Gray: Norfolk farmers have complained that live Irish cattle which have attracted a double subsidy are being sold in Norfolk. Am I right in thinking that this will stop at the end of this month?

Mr. Hoy: Yes, I think that my hon. Friend is right.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: Is the Minister aware of the very serious situation in the dead meat industry in Northern Ireland, and can he say to what extent the agreement may be responsible for this? What is he doing about it?

Mr. Hoy: We are aware of all these difficulties. I do not think that the agreement has really had this effect, but certainly when we come to consider these things we should obviously take every part of the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland, into consideration.

Cocoa (Stabilisation Scheme)

Sir John Rodgers: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will give an undertaking that the House will have an opportunity of discussing the proposals of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development for the international cocoa stabilisation scheme before Her Majesty's Government enters into any firm commitment.

Mr. Hoy: If, as I hope, a satisfactory international cocoa agreement can be negotiated, the text would be laid on the Table in the usual way.

Sir J. Rodgers: While I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that Answer, is

he aware that the cocoa trade is quite willing to co-operate with the stabilisation scheme if producer and consumer countries so decide, but at the same time it believes that to rationalise cocoa-growing, as has been done in rubber and tea, will be a much better method than that put forward by U.N.C.T.A.D., and that to maintain prices artificially at the so-called remunerative price will encourage over-production and do nothing to encourage further consumption of cocoa?

Mr. Hoy: I am grateful to the hon. Member for the first part of his supplementary question. This is a matter of getting agreement as between producer countries and those like ourselves who import. There is a substantial hope that we shall be able to reach agreement, and if we can do that it will be of benefit to both of us.

Farm Land (Value)

Mr. Wingfield Digby: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he is aware of the sharp drop in the value of farm land; and what steps he is taking to restore the confidence of the farming community in this connection.

Mr. John Mackie: In recent months, the average price paid for farm land has fallen away somewhat from the record level reached earlier this year, but land prices are influenced by many factors besides the profitability of farming. The average price level is still higher than in any year before 1965, and it provides no evidence of any loss of confidence by farmers.

Mr. Digby: Is the Minister aware that Government district valuers are holding that it has fallen by £50 an acre in recent months, and some farmers estimate that it has fallen more? Is this not evidence of poor farming prospects under the present Government?

Mr. Mackie: I do not agree with that at all. This is one of the things that farmers are not anxious to see, namely, the high price of land in this country.

Mr. Manuel: Is the Minister aware that the price of farm land, not high quality agricultural land, has risen considerably, and that land is wanted either


for the location of industry or the building of municipal houses?

Mr. Mackie: I agree with my hon. Friend.

Marauding Dogs

Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will now introduce legislation to increase the maximum fine for marauding dogs.

Mr. John Mackie: The Criminal Justice Bill, which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will be introducing later in this Session, will contain a provision to double the maximum fine of £10 for a first offence of livestock worrying.

Mr. Irvine: Has the Minister's attention been drawn to the claim made at the annual general meeting of the National Farmers' Union that for every fox killed by a hunt 100 sheep are killed by dogs? Does he not also know that for this reason a good many traditional sheep areas no longer carry the number of sheep that they used to? Does he not think that this matter should receive urgent attention?

Mr. Mackie: I accept the plug for fox-hunting. On the question of whether we are taking this matter seriously, the answer is that we have, through my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, appealed to the police to take as strong action as they can. We all know that worrying by dogs is a big problem in this country, and we are taking it seriously. The doubling of the fine for a first offence is one of the steps to deal with it.

Member's Telegram

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) at what time and date an overnight telegram despatched to him by the hon. Member for Tiverton was delivered to his Department; what action was taken; when that action was taken; and when he was informed of the content of the telegram;

(2) what instructions he has given concerning action to be taken when telegrams addressed to him arrive in his Department on Saturdays and Sundays.

Mr. Peart: I wrote to the hon. Member on the 26th October about this matter.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Is the Minister aware that the Postmaster-General's Department claims that overnight telegrams are delivered first post next day and that this is quite contrary to what the Minister said to me in his letter? Will he knock his head together with his right hon. Friend and let the House know how his Department contacts the Minister at weekends? Will he answer Question No. 25, which he said he was taking with Question No. 24?

Mr. Peart: The hon. Member feels aggrieved about the Post Office because he chose to send an overnight telegram, which I understand is cheaper, though I appreciate the reason why he did it. What I am concerned with is much more important, and that is to meet the hon. Gentleman. I have agreed to meet him, as he well knows, to discuss the problems of Tiverton. After all, he said, "Request meeting within next three weeks." That was not very urgent.

Sugar Beet (Factories)

Mr. W. H. Loveys: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether all sugar beet factories are now slicing to their full capacity.

Mr. Hoy: My right hon. Friend is informed by the British Sugar Corporation that all their factories in England are slicing to full capacity.

Mr. Loveys: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that until literally only two or three days ago the Kidderminster factory had to slow down all its slicing and the British Sugar Corporation sent a card saying that it was very concerned about this matter? This factory deals with all the sugar beet from the South of England, and this was caused by the great reduction in sugar beet growing in the South of England in the last few years. Will he not do something to correct this great reduction in the South of England?

Mr. Hoy: The price for sugar beet is fixed at the Annual Review, but that was not what the hon. Gentleman asked me. He asked me how the factories are working, and I was delighted to tell him that they were working to full capacity.

Salmon Disease

Mr. Onslow: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will now publish the official correspondence which he has exchanged with the Eire Department of Agriculture concerning salmon disease.

Mr. Hoy: No, Sir. I have promised to inform the House of the outcome.

Mr. Onslow: Can the hon. Gentleman confirm reports that this disease has now made its appearance in rivers flowing into the Solway, and will he give an assurance that he will deal with this matter more energetically than the Irish Government seem to have done?

Mr. Hoy: That is a little ungrateful of the hon. Gentleman. We had a meeting about this and I told him exactly what was happening and what action I had taken. I said that, when we had a complete reply, I would inform the House. The hon. Gentleman knows that, immediately there was some suspicion of this disease in the part of the country to which he refers, even before it had become apparent, we took action at once to put an order on it. This was done some days ago, and I would have thought that it would meet the desire of most people who are concerned about the protection of our rivers.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Pending the publication which the Minister has just promised, will he say whether the correspondence deals with steps to prevent the spread of the disease to Britain, and what are those steps?

Mr. Hoy: This is what we were discussing with Irish Ministers. Let me be quite frank with the House. Even now, there is still some doubt as to what the disease actually is. We have been assuming, and we are willing to accept, that it is what we say it is. We are taking action along with the Irish Government to do what we can to prevent it, but it is very difficult when the disease gets into the stream.

Selective Employment Tax

Mr. MacArthur: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the total sum paid in Selective Employment Tax by

farmers between 5th September, 1966, and the first repayment date in February, 1967.

Mr. John Mackie: About £8 million.

Mr. MacArthur: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this enormous additional cost is falling on farmers at a time of greatly restricted credit, and does he realise that, because of the repayment procedure, farmers will always be some millions of £s out of pocket until this absurd tax is finally extinguished? Will he now take steps to free agriculture from this unnecessary and irrelevant extra burden?

Mr. Mackie: The answer to the last part of that supplementary question is "No, Sir". In reply to the first part, if one puts the thing in proper perspective, it works out at roughly a little less than 4d. per week per person in interest.

Store Sheep and Cattle (Prices)

Mr. Jopling: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is aware of the loss of income suffered by farmers whose principal business is the production of store sheep and cattle, caused by the low market prices in the last few months; and what action he intends to take to assist them.

Mr. Peart: After a long period during which the market—for store cattle in particular—has been strong, prices declined sharply this autumn. Even so, the general price level is above that of earlier years. More recently, the tone of the market has improved, especially for good forward beef stores and the better quality store sheep. Farm income is a matter which we look at in the Price Review.

Mr. Jopling: Is not the Minister aware that these last three months have been absolutely vital for the whole year for farmers of this type, and does not he realise that there is a very serious crisis? Many of them, including many in his own constituency, are facing ruin. Will not the right hon. Gentleman get off his bottom and do something about it?

Mr. Peart: I would rather the hon. Gentleman would sit on his bottom instead of causing gloom. That is no answer in any case. I said in my reply that I believe that the tone of the market is improving.


I wish that hon. Members opposite would not try to talk down the market.

Mr. Noble: But the Minister and a great many of his constituents in the hill country must know perfectly well that the fact that the market may be turning up now is of no avail to people who had to sell two or three months ago.

Mr. Peart: I am aware of what has been the state of the market. I have said this before. There are reasons for it of which the right hon. Gentleman is well aware. I am glad that the market is now becoming stronger. The question of help to farmers in these areas is a matter for the Annual Price Review.

Bacon Market (Sharing Scheme)

Mr. Marten: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will increase the share of the British bacon market for British pigs.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he is satisfied with the present operations of the Bacon Market (Sharing) Agreement; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Brewis: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether the United Kingdom will meet its bacon quota this year under the market sharing agreement; and what the shortfall is likely to be.

Mr. Peart: The Bacon Market Sharing Understanding has been working reasonably well in difficult conditions. I cannot now say how supplies from any country, including the United Kingdom, will finally compare with its minimum allocation for the year ending next March. I shall, of course, have full regard to the interests of our own industry when we discuss next year's shares with the other countries.

Mr. Marten: But is the Minister aware that out of the first 26 weeks of the current pig year, so to call it, the British quota has been reached in only two? Will he agree that this is really due to the lack of action in the last Annual Price Review and is not the fault of the fanners? When he comes to renegotiate our share, will he bear this in mind, remembering that it is more the Government's fault than the farmers' fault, and

press for a higher allocation for the British share?

Mr. Peart: I told the hon. Gentleman that we shall be discussing this with our suppliers. It would be wrong for me to be dogmatic about the situation. It has nothing to do with what we did in the last Annual Price Review. The situation regarding bacon production is really fundamental.

Mr. Godber: Will the Minister take it that I shall be saying a good deal about this tomorrow? We are all deeply dissatisfied.

Mr. Peart: The right hon. Gentleman has already said that. I shall be delighted to answer him tomorrow.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Will the right hon. Gentleman now confirm that the home bacon industry will not fulfil its quota of the market this year? Has he noticed that bacon imports have increased by £12 million on the balance of payments this year? What does he propose to do to stop this increase in view of the situation in the bacon industry at this time?

Mr. Peart: I cannot accept that. We must wait till we have had our discussions. The problem of pig supply is not peculiar to the country, as the hon. Gentleman must know.

Horticulture (Production and Exports)

Mr. Onslow: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking, by legislation or otherwise, to encourage horticultural production, with particular reference to products for export.

Mr. John Wells: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to promote horticultural exports.

Mr. Peart: My Department's activities for the benefit of horticultural production include the work of the advisory services and the grants under the Horticulture Improvement Scheme, the scope of which was extended in July this year. Horticultural exports can qualify for the various measures of Government assistance for exporters generally. They will also come within the scope of the British Agricultural Export Council which, with my help


and encouragement, was set up earlier this year by industries connected with agriculture.

Mr. Onslow: That all sounds very fine, but is the right hon. Gentleman aware that cuttings are an important horticultural export and that a leading grower of chrysanthemums in my constituency has transferred the whole of his business to the United States because of the policies of this Government?

Mr. Peart: I cannot understand that. Even hon. Members opposite who have carefully followed our horticultural policy must admit that we have done much to help horticulture, and I referred to this in my reply. There may be other reasons.

Mr. Wells: Will the Minister take specific steps to encourage exporters to get through the barriers of health regulations in foreign countries? Second, will his inspectors who have to inspect stocks and then give certificates make sure that they give the certificates in correct form, without slipping up, and, where they do slip up, will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to see that his Department is prepared to pay compensation to the growers who lose?

Mr. Peart: I should have to be very careful about giving a complete answer on compensation, but I shall certainly take note of what the hon. Gentleman has said. I think that it is a new problem.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS

Dining Room Facilities (Parliamentary Recesses)

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Lord President of the Council whether, in order to increase the revenue of the Refreshment Department of the House, he will consider the opening of the dining facilities to the general public during Parliamentary recesses.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Richard Crossman): This proposal will be taken into account in the review which is being conducted of the finances of the Refreshment Department.

Mr. Hamilton: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that it is absurd for these

dining facilities to be idle for four months in the year when they could be earning money, probably from many people who would be quite anxious to come in at any rate once and taste the food we get in this House?

Mr. Crossman: The suggestion has certain obvious economic advantages, but it would raise grave problems of security and staffing. If it were to be pursued, it would have to be done by the Services Committee as a whole.

Sir C. Osborne: Will the right hon. Gentleman resist this preposterous suggestion and see that the House of Commons is not turned into a street corner cafeteria?

Hon. Members: It is already.

Mr. Crossman: I said that if the suggestion is to be considered at all it must be done by the full Services Committee.

Tablecloths and Napkins

Sir Knox Cunningham: asked the Lord President of the Council if he will state the reason for ending the use of linen tablecloths and napkins in the Dining Room of the House of Commons; and whether the linen previously in use was of Ulster manufacture.

Mrs. Braddock: I have been asked to reply.
Linen tablecloths and napkins have been withdrawn as a measure of economy. The linen used in the Department was manufactured in Belfast.

Sir Knox Cunningham: May I ask the hon. Lady to enter the ring and see that tablecloths made from Ulster linen, which are durable, easily washed and good to look at, are bought by the Catering Department for the Members' Dining Room?

Mrs. Braddock: Perhaps in reply to that question I can give the hon. and learned Gentleman some information which might change his mind about the position. The continued use of table linen would have contributed further to the loss already sustained in providing meals in the Members' Dining Room. Laundry charges incurred by the Catering Department in 1965 amounted to £4,386.


They were increased by 5 per cent. with effect from 13th September.
The linen was selected for quality and purchased at competitive prices after tenders from several independent firms had been considered. The Buying Sub-Committee was a Sub-Committee of the former Kitchen Committee, the predecessor of the present Catering Sub-Committee. We were concerned very much indeed with the question of the loss. We agree on the very good quality of the linen—there is no question about that—and it will continue to be used in the Strangers' Dining Room until it is finished.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Chairman of the Kitchen Committee must give shorter answers.

Mrs. Knight: Is the hon. Lady aware that many Members take strong exception to the cheap and tatty plastic mats which have replaced the linen, thus reducing the character of the House of Commons Dining Room to that of a nursery tea?

Select Committee on Science and Technology

Mr. Palmer: asked the Lord President of the Council when he will announce the appointment of the Select Committee on Science and Technology.

Mr. Crossman: I hope to satisfy my hon. Friend when we have the promised debate on procedure.

Mr. Palmer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this proposal attracted wide support on both sides of the House? Such a Committee has been talked about for months and months and many of us are anxious for action. Will my right hon. Friend bring his reforming energy to bear?

Mr. Crossman: I cannot go further before the debate takes place.

Mr. Heath: Why is it necessary to wait for the debate on procedure? The Opposition gave their agreement to this on 28th April last. The right hon. Gentleman or his predecessor could perfectly well have put down a Motion on the Order Paper. The House would accept such a Motion and the Committee could be established.

Mr. Crossman: It may be that the right hon. Gentleman would like to do it that way, but I thought it better that the whole question of specialist committees should have an overall answer and should not be dealt with bit by bit.

Ministers (Questioning)

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Lord President of the Council whether he will seek to initiate, for a trial period, a twice-weekly fifteen-minute session of questioning of Ministers, without prior notice of questions, similar to the practice in Australia.

Mr. Crossman: No, Sir. If we adopted the Australian practice, Questions on matters of detail and constituency matters could not be satisfactorily answered.

Mr. Hamilton: That may be true, but other questions could. Does not my right hon. Friend agree that this would be a very salutary exercise for both back benchers and Ministers, for Ministers would be unable to come to the House prepared with carefully worded nonsense from civil servants? Will he look at this again with a view to giving us a little more excitement at Question Time instead of the fuddy-duddy work we get from the Opposition?

Mr. Crossman: Naturally, since this proposal came from my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton), I have given it careful attention. I was greatly attracted by the unpredictable "catch-as-catch-can" possibilities. Nevertheless, Question Time is a serious time and I do not think that this is really a serious proposal to introduce into the House.

Mr. Blackburn: As one who has seen the Australian system in operation, may I ask my right hon. Friend to resist this suggestion?

Mr. Crossman: I had hoped that I had given that impression in my replies.

Mr. Noble: While agreeing with the Leader of the House in his desire to resist this suggestion, may I ask whether it would not help the House if he persuaded Ministers from top to bottom—[Interruption.]—from the highest ranking to the lowest ranking, to answer Questions of which they have had plenty of


warning on the Order Paper or which they an; asked in debate?

Mr. Crossman: That is a suggestion better put to Mr. Speaker than to me.

"Dorset Evening Echo"

Mr. Evelyn King: asked the Lord President of the Council why the Dorset Evening Echo is not available to hon. Members in either the Library or the Tea Room.

Mr. Crossman: No Member has asked for the Dorset Evening Echo to be provided.

Mr. King: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I am now asking for it and that my wish is shared by some eight other hon. Members living in Dorset who take the keenest interest in Dorset news?

Mr. Crossman: Perhaps I may suggest to the hon. Gentleman that this Question could really have been put more sensibly to me direct rather than being placed on the Order Paper.

Catering Facilities

Mrs. Renée Short: asked the Lord President of the Council what proposals he has for improving the standard and variety of the food offered in Members' dining rooms and tea rooms, and in the cafeteria open to the public; and what proposals he has for the improvement of the environment and general upkeep of these parts of the House.

Mrs. Braddock: I have been asked to reply.
The Catering Sub-Committee is conducting a comprehensive review of the services, including the menus, offered by the Refreshment Department, and, in consultation with the Accommodation and Housekeeping Sub-Committee, will put forward proposals for improving the environment and upkeep of refreshment rooms.

Mrs. Short: May I tell my hon. Friend.—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] May I tell my hon. Friend—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady knows now how to ask a supplementary question.

Mrs. Short: Is my hon. Friend aware that these proposals are long overdue? Is he further aware that many hon. Members are concerned about the continually deteriorating standards of catering in this House, that we are disgusted by the broken furniture, by the dirty carpets and the monotony of the menus offered in many parts of the House, including the public and Press facilities? May I ask her also——

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is long enough for one supplementary question.

Mrs. Braddock: The position is that a special report from the Select Committee on House of Commons Services commenting upon the accounts for 1965 will be published later this week. Perhaps there will be opportunity for a full discussion on these matters later.

Refreshment Department (General Manager)

Mrs. Renée Short: asked the Lord President of the Council what salary is attached to the post of catering superintendent at the House of Commons; how many applicants there were for the recent vacancy; how many were interviewed; to whom the post was offered; what was his immediate past post; and why this applicant then turned the job down.

Mrs. Braddock: I have been asked to reply.
The salary paid to the general manager of the Refreshment Department is not fixed; it is a matter for negotiation between him and the Catering Sub-Committee. There were fifty-five applicants for the vacancy caused by the resignation of Mr. Roberts, the present manager, and of these, ten were selected for interview. The post was offered to and accepted by Mr. R. J. Parker, who subsequently for personal reasons withdrew.

Oral Questions (Fridays)

Mr. Rankin: asked the Lord President of the Council if he will move to amend Standing Orders to provide for Oral Questions on Fridays from 10 a.m. to 11 a.m.

Mr. Crossman: No, Sir.

Mr. Rankin: Will my right hon. Friend think again? Has he any objection to


the hours suggested for Friday? If he has not, will he consider the fact that there are 100 Questions for Oral Answer on the Order Paper today and that this is a common situation? There is a great desire for knowledge that is not being satisfied in the House. What is my right hon. Friend going to do about it? Why waste Fridays?

Mr. Crossman: I suggest that the first thing to do is to look at the recommendations of the Select Committee. It has recommended an extra 15 minutes on all days when the House is sitting. It is better to look at that first before looking at my hon. Friend's proposal.

Oral Answers to Questions — BARRISTERS (PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE)

Mr. S. C. Silkin: asked the Attorney-General whether he will take steps to have referred to the Law Commission the general question of professional negligence with particular reference to the decision of the Court of Appeal in the case of Rondel v. Worsley.

Mr. Hooley: asked the Attorney-General whether he will introduce legislation to enable members of the public to sue barristers for negligence arising from the performance of their professional work.

Mr. Whitaker: asked the Attorney-General whether he will take steps to ensure that equal exemption from liability for negligence applies to solicitors as to barristers.

The Attorney-General (Sir Elwyn Jones): As my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor said yesterday in another place, it is possible that there may be a further appeal in the case of Rondel v. Worsley. It would therefore in any event be premature to consider the desirability of legislation on the subject of a barrister's liability for negligence and the related question of the liability of solicitors. I can say, however, that this is a matter to which my noble Friend is giving careful consideration, but he does not consider that it would be appropriate to refer it to the Law Commission.

Mr. Silkin: Would my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the result of this decision as it now stands is that a

person who suffers loss, and perhaps severe loss, as the result of the negligence of his professional adviser cannot get any compensation in any circumstances? Does he not consider that any professional man worthy of the name would not wish to have that sort of protection.

The Attorney-General: The decision of the Court of Appeal was confined to what a barrister says or does, or fails to say or do, in the conduct or management of a case in court. That was the issue which fell for decision in the particular case. As my hon. and learned Friend has asked the question, the House may care to know how the matter was put by the Court of Appeal. It said:
The immunity arises not because the law puts the barrister in a unique position. He is in the same position as the judge, a witness and a juryman. It has been well settled law for generations that all these enjoy absolute immunity from any form of civil action being brought against them in respect of anything they say or do in court during the course of a trial. The law recognises that on balance of convenience public policy requires that they shall have such an immunity. It is of great public importance that they should all perform their respective duties free from fear that any disgruntled and possibly impecunious litigant or other person may subsequently involve them in costly litigation.
I apologise for the long answer, but this is an important matter. As I have said, my noble Friend has it under consideration.

Mr. Hooley: Would not my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is wrong that the members of an important profession should be exempt from being sued for negligence in work done in the ordinary course of their professional duties?

The Attorney-General: As I have said, my noble Friend is giving this matter consideration. It would be premature to do anything either by way of legislation or otherwise at the moment, because the case in question has not yet reached its possible ultimate destination.

Mr. Whitaker: Without wishing to comment on the particular case, can my right hon. and learned Friend see any grounds for distinguishing between the two branches of the legal profession, each of which owes an equal duty to the court?

The Attorney-General: I confess that I personally find it difficult to distinguish


between the duties of a solicitor advocate in court and a barrister advocate. However, this is one of the matters to which my noble Friend will be and is giving consideration.

BRITISH MOTOR CORPORATION (DISPUTE)

Sir G. Nabarro: Sir G. Nabarro (by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Labour what action he is taking in regard to the dispute which has now resulted in 30,000 motor car workers at B.M.C. plants in the Midlands and elsewhere being stood down from today.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. R. J. Gunter): One hundred and ninety employees of Morris Radiators, Oxford, have been on strike since 20th October in protest against the management's decision to make 69 employees at the factory redundant.
As a result of the strike, workers have been laid off at a number of B.M.C. plants, including Longbridge, where employment has already been affected by the strike of car delivery drivers. Production at the Corporation's car assembly plants is now virtually at a standstill.
In all, about 30,000 workers have been laid off. Employment in firms supplying components will be progressively affected.
The employees on strike are members of the A.E.U. and T. & G.W.U. I understand that the unions have not given the strike their official support. In my view, there is no scope for useful intervention by the Ministry at this stage.

Sir G. Nabarro: Does not this anti-redundancy strike arise directly from the policies of the Government and is not the strike likely to worsen? Is it not the prognosis that 50,000 men will be out of work by the weekend? How grave does a situation of this kind have to become before the Minister decides that it is propitious to take some constructive action?

Mr. Gunter: The operative words are "propitious" and "constructive action". It is always a matter of balance and judgment about when to interfere. If one intervenes at the wrong moment, one can find oneself in a far worse mess than at the beginning. The cause of the redundancy declared by the British Motor

Corporation is the strike of 190 employees at Morris Radiators, and the Corporation has regarded these and the other redundancies which it has announced as inevitable in the present circumstances.
As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Prime Minister, the First Secretary and I met the union's representatives earlier in the week and explained the position to them. I do not think that it would be useful for me to intervene now. It must be remembered that this strike, which is having such appalling effects, is an unofficial strike. The workers at the factory affected, at a meeting of employees of Morris Radiators, Oxford, accepted the need for redundancy and voted against strike action.

Mr. Chapman: Is not one of the root causes of this trouble the failure of B.M.C. to carry out proper consultation about its policy of redundancy and dismissals and about the respective levels of the two? Would my right hon. Friend consider setting up as soon as possible a full top-level inquiry into industrial relations at B.M.C, which are among the worst in the country?

Mr. Gunter: As my hon. Friend knows, industrial relations at B.M.C. have been a matter of concern to the Ministry of Labour for a long time. Certain steps were taken at one time, with some success, to ease the situation, but the position is that 69 men out of a total of 1,200 manual employees at this factory were declared redundant. Whether the consultation was of the appropriate kind, or the right nature, is a matter of opinion. B.M.C. holds firmly to the view that eight weeks' notice was given, but, on the other hand, there is the doubt whether that length of time having been given, the channels of communication and consultation were as clear as they ought to have been.

Sir K. Joseph: Will not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the National Plan was torn up by the 20th July measures announced by the Prime Minister without much consultation with industry or the country? I accept entirely that it is for the Minister to judge when it is propitious to intervene, and that this is an unofficial strike, but, in view of the overwhelming vote by the workers of Morris Radiators against a strike against


redundancy, has the right hon. Gentleman any hope to offer the House and the country that the union officials are doing their best to get these unofficial strikers back to work?

Mr. Gunter: The Executive of the Amalgamated Engineering Union yesterday reaffirmed its decision and instructed the men to go back to work. I am in close, intimate and daily touch with both unions and B.M.C. about the dispute.

Mr. Orme: Has not the figure of 69 now been reduced to 28 and has not Sir George Harriman, the Chairman of B.M.C., agreed with the stewards that he would be in favour of work-sharing in this department, although that would be against the firm's policy in other departments? Have not the men in this department shared work in the past in the interests of the firm? Why cannot the Government now have work-sharing in the interests of the men in the industry?

Mr. Gunter: I have no authority over commercial matters such as that. That is a matter for management. There are arguments about whether, in the long term, work-sharing is efficient and economical. The figures adduced by my hon. Friend to arrive at 28 are not within my knowledge.

Captain W. Elliot: Is it not an appalling reflection on the Minister and his Department that this situation can happen and he says that there is nothing that he can do, either before or after, until the right moment? Is not this an overwhelming argument for speeding up the hearings of the Royal Commission on the Trade Unions and Employers' Associations?

Mr. Gunter: I had thought that it was accepted on both sides of the House—it has been accepted at the Ministry of Labour for a very long time—that it is a very delicate thing indeed to interfere with an unofficial strike, because the authority of the unions is very often at stake.
On the question that authority ought to be vested in the Ministry of Labour for dealing with unofficial strikes, the Ministry of Labour has already submitted evidence and the hon. Gentleman can read our conclusions.
To deal with speeding up the Royal Commission, I would only say that the

House has always left that sort of thing in the hands of a Royal Commission.

Mr. Christopher Price: Will the Minister agree, first, that this is a very uniquely serious situation, not just for B.M.C. but for the whole of the future export potential of the British motor industry? If he feels that he cannot at the moment usefully either intervene or set up an inquiry into B.M.C., would he give an assurance now that he will keep the matter under day-to-day, even hourly, surveillance, so that the moment he thinks that his officials can play some useful part in solving the situation, the machinery can be put into effect?

Mr. Gunter: I gladly give my hon. Friend that assurance, but I must repeat that it is always a matter of judgment when to move at a certain time so that one does not exacerbate feelings rather than cool them. One has to be very careful in this matter.

Sir G. Nabarro: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely,
the paralysis of the motor car manufacuring industry, with 30,000 workers stood off and prospect of 50,000 out of work by next weekend.
My submission to you, Sir, is shortly expressed in that the reply of the Minister of Labour, a few moments ago, is superficial in character because the real consideration of this House ought to be directed to Government policies and the effects that they are immediately having——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not argue the merits of the issue that he seeks to raise. He must argue to the question whether he should get the Adjournment.

Sir G. Nabarro: Shortly expressed, this is a fundamental matter of Government policy and not a matter of Ministry of Labour conciliation at this moment. Motor car production in the Midlands will be reduced by about 300,000 cars this year in the instance of the British Motor Corporation——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must address himself to the question that he is submitting to me, that the matter is definite and of urgent public


importance. He must not proceed to debate the issue now.

Sir G. Nabarro: The decline in motor car production will gravely affect our export prospects and will lead to further large-scale unemployment both in the peripheral industries which supply components and accessories and in the production of motor cars. Unless there is Government action to alleviate this situation, and immediately, especially having regard to the sudden throwing out of work in the last 48 hours of this huge number of men, then the nation will be very much the poorer during the course of the next few months.
My submission is that this unemployment situation will worsen in the early future, and that the situation is calamitous and ought to be attended to by the House at once.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely,
the paralysis of the motor car manufacturing industry with 30,000 workers stood off and prospect of 50,000 out of work by next weekend.
I fully appreciate the submission which the hon. Member has made to me and I appreciate the anxiety which he feels in view of the circumstances which he has described. The House knows that the powers given to the Chair are circumscribed by the practice of the House and the Rulings given by my predecessors. I have to take account of precedents in coming to my conclusion on whether to submit the hon. Gentleman's application to the House.
It is a firm rule that if a matter is not raised at the earliest opportunity it fails in urgency in the Parliamentary sense, and the fact that new information has been received regarding a matter that has been continuing does not itself make that matter one of urgency. As the House knows, industrial troubles and strikes at

the British Motor Corporation's factories began on 20th October and therefore, in view of the precedents, I must rule that the hon. Gentleman's submission was not made at the earliest opportunity. Therefore, I cannot submit this application to the House.

PRIVATE NOTICE QUESTION

Mr. Hector Hughes: On a point of order. May I ask, with the very greatest respect, whether in refusing permission to put a Private Notice Question to the Secretary of State for Scotland about the disaster——

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. and learned Gentleman wishes to make a submission about a Private Notice Question which has been refused, he cannot mention the Private Notice Question itself.

Mr. Hughes: You said when refusing me, Sir, that you had regard to the rules laid down on page 358 of Erskine May relating to Private Notice Questions. My question related to a disaster——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I would deprecate the asking of reasons of Mr. Speaker as to why he did not accept a Private Notice Question. Mr. Speaker receives, every day, requests from hon. Gentlemen to ask a Private Notice Question. Very many of those he turns down, and if he were to be asked to give the reasons, day after day, this would trespass on the time of the House.
The hon. and learned Gentleman must have the confidence that I hope that the House has in the judgment and fairness of Mr. Speaker. May I assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that I took into consideration, in refusing his Private Notice Question, every factor that he has mentioned on the pages in Erskine May to which he has referred.

Mr. Hughes: Further to that point of order. May I say, with respect, that I have the greatest confidence in your fairness and judgment, Mr. Speaker. Thank you.

TITLES (ABOLITION)

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to abolish certain titles in Great Britain.
Older Members of the House may recall that I was given leave to introduce a similar Bill during the last months of the last Conservative Government. My proposed Bill is short and it seeks to ensure that all titles bestowed by Her Majesty or her predecessors shall cease with the deaths of the present holders; and that Her Majesty shall not bestow any titles as from the passing of the Bill.
A week ago we were told that the Prices and Incomes Bill was a blunt instrument. This is not a blunt instrument; it is a humane killer. It would do no injustice or cruelty to the holder of any title, but would provide that the title shall cease with the death of the holder.
The House agreed to the introduction of my other proposed Bill. When it came to the announcement for the Second Reading, I discovered that the formality of the Queen's permission was required. I was informed through reliable channels that this permission should be given by the Home Secretary who, at a certain time, would nod. I made the necessary representations, and the Home Secretary refused to nod. My Bill was sabotaged even before it got a Second Reading. What became of the Home Secretary, Mr. Henry Brooke? The last time that I saw him he was nodding in the House of Lords. Therefore, I look with great expectation to the new Home Secretary, who, I believe, has progressive and enlightened views, to nod at the appropriate moment.
I believe that there is a general feeling in the country that the time has come for a radical alteration of hereditary titles. It was expressed in an influential newspaper, the Observer, on 27th October, previous to my last Bill. It said:
It would be far better for this nation, including its upper class families, if titles were to be abolished. They encourage unrealistic thinking and living and they add needlessly to confusion. Although the House of Lords has had its value over the centuries, there is no sense in a hereditary second chamber today and the monarchy, which still has a genuine political value in limiting political ambitions

and acting as a symbol of communal unity, can get along perfectly well without an aristocracy as is shown in Scandinavia and the Midlands "——

Hon. Members: Where?

Mr. Hughes: —"and the Netherlands".
There is general agreement in the country that our whole hereditary system needs to be changed and that there is no purpose in having in the House of Lords titled gentlemen who are descended from, say, one of the 19 illegitimate children of a king. Neither is there any sense these days in having in the House of Lords descendants of people who were bandits and gangsters compared with whom the train robbers are respectable gentlemen.
I shall not go into the history of this matter. I suggest that my Bill is reasonable and deserves consideration. It is meant to help the Opposition and the Government.
When my previous Bill was introduced, the Conservative Party was in difficulty about getting a leader. It looked round the House of Commons, but could not find one and, therefore, sent to the House of Lords. The House of Lords provided a leader, and the right hon. Gentleman who came here gave up his title. Other right hon. Gentlemen gave up their titles. Therefore, the whole attitude towards titles is changing. When the Opposition discover that they still need a leader, or that they want a new leader, they may have to go to the House of Lords again. Therefore, the passing of my Bill would help them to bring a new leader from the House of Lords.
I am not satisfied with the Prime Minister's statement on the honours system. I want to abolish titles altogether, and that includes titles given to Labour people and trade union leaders. I do not see how any Prime Minister can give titles to one side or another, so I want to help the Prime Minister by taking away this power of recommending people for titles. It will remove some suspicions from the trade union movement.
I absolve the Prime Minister of any favouritism in this respect, but there are inevitably trade union leaders who want to know why other trade union leaders have titles and they have not. They look at the block votes commanded by


certain leaders at the Labour Party conference and say, "Old Sir Bill", or "Old Sir Tom" has his title because at a certain moment he could dispose of half a million votes. The trade union leader I know will never get a title. The trade union leader who has done great service for my constituents, Mr. Abe Moffat, leader of the Scottish miners, retired after many years' service to the miners of Scotland. He did not get a title. He was a Communist. He probably would have refused to take a title.
I do not understand the argument that the Prime Minister is being fair to leaders on both sides of industry. If honours are to be continued, I should like to see the Prime Minister send to the House of Lords a dozen miners who have just retired from the coal face after 50 years' service and who could well do with the £4 10s. a day allowance and a first-class ticket to London.
I therefore think that the Prime Minister will be grateful to me for proposing that this power should be taken out of his hands. Prime Ministers have too much power, too much patronage. I am sure that the present Prime Minister will be grateful to me for seeking to introduce this Bill.
I could say a lot more. I am prepared to be conciliatory, as usual, when it comes to the Committee stage. If the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) thinks that I am being too conservative, I shall be quite prepared to consider any constructive Amendments which he may propose. I commend the Motion to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Emrys Hughes, Mr. Sydney Silverman, Mr. Manuel, Mr. William Hamilton, Mr. Michael Foot, Mr. Baxter, Mr. Gwynfor Evans, Mr. Lipton, Mr. Buchan, Mr. Mikardo and Mr. Frank Allaun.

TITLES (ABOLITION)

Bill to abolish certain titles in Great Britain, presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 17th March, and to be printed. [Bill 123.]

Orders of the Day — ARMED FORCES (RECOMMITTED) BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Sir ERIC FLETCHER in the Chair]

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2.—(POWER OF DEFENCE COUNCIL TO MAKE REGULATIONS AS TO ENGAGEMENT OF PERSONS IN REGULAR FORCES.)

4.0 p.m.

Mr. Humphrey Atkins: I beg to move, in page 3, line 25, to leave out from beginning to 'a' in line 31.
For hundreds of years Parliament has maintained a very close watch over the Army. This probably began at the time of the Commonwealth, when the Army became extremely unpopular and Parliament determined that never should the Army be in a position to exert undue power or to terrorise the country. When the Air Force came into being, very much the same procedure was followed. Parliament keeps a close watch over the affairs of the Air Force as it does over the Army. The watch is rather less close over the Royal Navy. I suppose that this is because there is no example in history of the Royal Navy or any other Navy being used as an instrument of tyranny. Nevertheless, the watch kept by Parliament over the Navy is stricter than that which is kept over civilian servants of the Crown.
Briefly, the control which Parliament exercises is, first, control of numbers and, secondly, control over the power given to the Defence Council to exercise discipline. Every year we have to vote sums of money for the Armed Services. Alone among Government Departments, we vote the numbers of men that may be maintained in either. As for discipline, the Army and the Air Force Acts, which originally lasted only for one year but now last for five years and have to be continued by continuation Orders every year, provide controls over the power to exercise discipline.
By this Clause the Government propose slightly to diminish the control exercised by Parliament over the affairs of the Armed Forces. Until now, the terms


of enlistment and conditions of service of persons in the Army and Royal Air Force have been laid down by Act of Parliament and can be altered only by Act of Parliament. The Royal Navy is in a slightly different position in that it has more freedom to alter its terms of enlistment and conditions of service, but not complete freedom. Parliament has always taken a very close interest in these matters. To illustrate my point I need go no further back than the last occasion when a Bill of this sort was before the House.
Many hon. Members will remember this very Committee sitting five years ago when considering what was then the Army and Air Force Bill. The proceedings of that Committee took place on 2nd May, 1961, and 26th June, 1961, and occupied a total of almost 18 hours of discussion. Fifty Amendments were put down and discussed, and in that period of time no less than eight hours—182 columns of HANSARD—and 23 Amendments were devoted to discussions concerning the terms of enlistment and conditions of service. This shows that Parliament always has concerned itself very closely with these matters, and no doubt always will.
The Bill will replace this system, by which terms of enlistment and conditions of service are governed by Act of Parliament, by empowering the Defence Council to alter them by Regulations. It was reasonable to expect—I certainly did—that when this proposition was put forward the Government would advance powerful reasons why they should take this power, for the first time ever. We looked forward to evidence being given to the Select Committee in support of this case.
Written evidence was given and witnesses were examined by the Select Committee, but the evidence for this change was pretty thin. It boiled down to this: the Government and the expert witnesses had two reasons for suggesting this change. First, they said that it would be easier for the Defence Council, and, secondly, that it would be quicker for the Defence Council. They gave examples of the delays that they had experienced in the past when trying to alter terms of enlistment or conditions of service.
The first reason can be dismissed very quickly. It is always easier for Government

Departments to do what they like without coming to Parliament for permission. No doubt every Government Department would like to be able to do so. But Parliament is there to make sure that Government Departments do not do things that this House does not want them to do, so we need not pay much attention to the first reason.
The second reason, that it is quicker, has a good deal more weight, even though only slender evidence was put forward in support of it. It can be appreciated that conditions may easily arise where it is desired to alter the terms of enlistment, and so on, and to have to wait for five years could mean that the Army or the Royal Air Force would miss an opportunity to recruit the new people which they urgently needed.
The Select Committee came to the conclusion that, on the whole, this suggestion was reasonable, and in its Report it said:
Your Committee believe that flexibility and speed in effecting changes in enlistment rules and conditions of service are required in present day conditions if maximum recruitment is to take place.
My hon. Friends and I do not dissent from that view. We think that under present day conditions it is a reasonable requirement, and we are prepared to surrender part of the power that we now have. We are, however, particularly concerned that the maximum control should remain in the hands of the House consistent with this belief. This is the reason for the Amendment.
As it stands, Clause 2(4) provides for Regulations being made by Statutory Instruments of two sorts. Where the Statutory Instrument repeals or amends an Act of Parliament a draft of it has to be laid before Parliament. Where it does not, the Regulations come into force at once and are subject to annulment by the House within the 40-day period.

The Amendment seeks to ensure that all Statutory Instruments made by the Defence Council under the Clause are laid in draft. We first considered whether we should not suggest that the Statutory Instrument should be subject to the affirmative Resolution procedure and thus require the affirmative vote of Parliament before coming into force, but we decided against that because an argument would have been advanced against


it that it merely consumed Parliamentary time even when the Regulations were not objected to. We therefore suggest that all these Statutory Instruments should be laid in draft form and come into force after 40 days if Parliament has not in the meantime passed a Resolution that no further action should be taken on them.

The reason for this provision will be readily understood. If Regulations are made and laid before the House, subject to annulment, they come into force at once. It may well be that, not 40 days, but a much longer period will elapse before they can be debated in the House and then annulled.

Regulations might be made even at the beginning of September, when there would be no time to debate them until well into November. If the House said that it thought that the Regulations should not be made, the Government of the day would immediately reply, "It will be very difficult to change them now, because they have been in force for over two months and a large number of people have been recruited on those terms. Therefore, we cannot alter them."

We believe that although, strictly speaking, the procedure is the same in the House—that is to say, one can only approve or disapprove of the Regulations in total, and cannot amend them—it gives a better opportunity in the House to amend Regulations which the House does not like if they are laid in draft. In that case, we would all have an opportunity of seeing them and forming our views upon them before they come into force.

All of us would accept that it is easier to change something which has not begun than it is to change something which has been in force for some time. That the Government recognise this is shown by the provision that, where Regulations amend or repeal Acts of Parliament, this procedure shall be followed.

I can think of only two reasons which the Government might give for rejecting this proposal. First, they may say that all the earlier Statutory Instruments will be in this first category, as they will all amend or repeal Acts of Parliament and that, therefore, we need not worry. This is probably true, and I have no doubt that all the earlier Instruments will be in

that category, but as time goes on this will be less and less true. Subsequent Regulations will tend more and more to amend Regulations rather than Acts and will, therefore, follow the second procedure.

The Government might also argue that our proposal involves a delay of 40 days. So it does, but I do not believe that this argument should be taken too seriously. After all, until now, when the Army and the Air Force have wanted to change these matters, they have had to wait not 40 days but anything up to five years and an improvement from five years' to 40 days' delay is not too bad. They could perfectly well wait for 40 days.

I do not believe that the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force will be able to advance powerful reasons for saying that a delay of 40 days will seriously affect Army or Air Force recruiting. This is a most reasonable Amendment. It preserves the maximum Parliamentary control consistent with the granting to the Government of the increased flexibility which they seek. I hope that they will accept it.

4.15 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force (Mr. Merlyn Rees): Some time ago, the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) said that about nine-tenths of the business in the House was non-controversial, in a broad political sense. Whether or not that figure is correct, the Bill and the Clause which we are discussing comes into this category. All of us are concerned to improve the disciplinary causes of the three Armed Services. I say this because I should like to thank the hon. Member for Merton and Morden (Mr. Humphrey Atkins) for having given me full notice of this point and also of many similar points which he wishes to raise later.
It is true that Clause 2 breaks new ground, to the extent that it empowers the Defence Council to make Regulations about terms of enlistment which, traditionally, in the past were laid down in the annual or, more recently, in the quinquennial, Army and Air Force Acts. The need for this was fully explained to the House on 13th December last year, when the Bill received its first Second Reading, by my right hon. Friend the then Minister


of Defence for the Army, and was enlarged on in the evidence to the Select Committee.
This is, in general, that modern conditions require us to have a more flexible and speedy procedure for altering terms of enlistment than we had in the past if we are not to lose many recruiting opportunities. Certainly, now and for many years past—the practice will grow in the future—industry loses no opportunity to adapt the inducements which it offers to the circumstances of the day. We must be ready to do the same if we are not to lose much-needed recruits.
This point was accepted, as the hon. Gentleman said, by the Select Committee, who said:
Your Committee believe that flexibility and speed in effecting changes in enlistment rules and conditions of service are required in present-day conditions if maximum recruitment is to take place. They also accept that Parliament's rights are safeguarded by the requirement (in subsection 4)"—
the Amendment to which we are now discussing—
of the annulment (or in certain cases laying in draft) procedure.…Your Committee have therefore agreed to Clause 2 of the Bill. The House will have the opportunity to judge the merits of any regulations which the Defence Council may make in due course.
It might be convenient if I say something in explanation of the annulment and laying in draft procedures, as these are crucial to the argument. Regulations subject to the annulment procedure must be laid before both Houses of Parliament after being made as Statutory Instruments, but before coming into operation. They must contain a date saying when the Regulations are to commence, which may be the same as, or later—but not earlier than—that at which copies were laid before both Houses.
Within 40 days from the date on which copies were laid, either House may resolve that an Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Instrument be annulled. When that is done, no proceedings may be taken thereafter under the Instrument and an Order in Council would have to be made revoking it. It is true, however, that this would be without prejudice to anything done under the Instrument before the date of the Resolution to annul it.
The laying in draft procedure differs in this respect. Where Regulations have

to be made under this procedure, the Statutory Instrument may not be made, and, therefore, the Regulations cannot take effect until 40 days after they have been laid. The House will be aware that the 40-day procedure does not take into account days when Parliament is dissolved or prorogued or has adjourned for more than four days.
With those basic facts in mind, I now turn to the Amendment. I would like to say, first, what the Amendment does not do. It does not require alterations to terms or enlistment to be made by Statute instead of by Regulation. Nor does it require such Regulations, as has been pointed out, to be subject to the affirmative Resolution of both Houses of Parliament. Thus, it is clear that the Opposition have accepted the need for a speedier and more flexible procedure for altering terms of enlistment.
The only effect of the Amendment is to impose a delay of at least 40 days on all Regulations laid under Clause 2. We accept that, in the special case of the existing enactments, this delay is necessary. It is, of course, incomparably less than would be required by the full legislative process. We do not, however, consider that there is a case for similar treatment of ordinary, day-to-day Regulations dealing with details of conditions of service within the terms of the enactments.
Occasions could arise on which the delay implicit in the Amendment could have quite undesirable consequences and at best it would serve little useful purpose. For example, acceptance of the Amendment would delay the introduction of a Naval recruit's right to purchase his discharge, to which the Select Committee referred in paragraph 7 of its Report, and on which the Regulations are being prepared.
These are not of profound Parliamentary importance. They will come to the eye of the House and, if the House so desires, the matter will be discussed. It is not being taken from the purview of the House.
It is misleading to suggest that as we have struggled on in the past with the requirement to alter terms of enlistment only every five years we should easily be able to accept a mere 40 days' delay. In the first place, in the past when there


were annual Army and Air Force Acts we had to wait a year only: this was very inconvenient but not nearly as serious as the present delay of up to five years.
Secondly, and more important, I must stress that 40 days is the minimum period of delay: if a Recess intervened the delay could be very much longer. Thus, if we wished to alter terms of enlistment in July, we could find ourselves faced with a delay of nearly four months before they could take effect, if the Regulations had to be laid in daft: this could prevent us from making alterations in enlistment terms which we thought were needed to attract school-leavers into the Services until most of them had found other forms of employment. We are, therefore:, satisfied that the balance of advantage lies very clearly with Clause 2 as it is at present drafted.
I make another point which I think an important one. It may not be generally realised that to a considerable extent Clause 2 actually extends Parliamentary control. Regulations dealing with the greater part of the Royal Navy's terms of enlistment are at present made without any reference to Parliament whatever, and have been for many years. The Army and the Royal Air Force have always been entrusted with Regulation-making powers in parts of this field without reference back to Parliament at all. For example, in 1962 under Section 3(1) of the Army and Air Force Act, 1961, the Army Council without reference to Parliament amended the Regular Army Enlistment and Service Regulations to take away the four-year break point from some classes of future Army recruits and to give a three-year break point to certain similar classes of future Army recruits. Under Clause 2 of the Bill, all these Regulation powers must be exercised by a Statutory Instrument. Thus, in this important respect Parliamentary control will be extended.
It is not the desire of the Government to take away powers from this House, but it is felt—and the Select Committee felt—that the time has come for many minor changes which take place, and which should take place from time to time, to be made more easily. We are in a world where, despite talk both in this House and elsewhere of recessions,

and so on, we have full employment and there is a quite different situation from that before the war. Firms are going into the schools, there is recruitment of young people in their twenties. The back pages of the Sunday newspapers give an example of the new sort of rôle in which we live. In these circumstances, there should be more flexibility.
This House will still have ultimate control and the Government consider that this change is vital to the Armed Forces. For these reasons, I recommend the Committee to reject the proposed Amendment.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: The reply by the Under-Secretary was characteristically courteous, but, nevertheless, in its ultimate conclusion, disappointing. I recognise the point he has made, that over part of the field the Bill as it stands does introduce Parliamentary control where it did not exist before, but of course those Regulations which will be of most interest to the House refer to areas where Parliamentary control of a severer kind has already existed.
There is, as the hon. Gentleman said, no disposition on this side of the Committee to query the desirability of using some form of Regulation-making power to deal with the matters set out in the first subsection, but I cannot think that very serious weight attaches to his objection about the loss of a minimum period of 40 days. Where for the first time legislative control is being taken away it seems trivial to say that a minimum delay of 40 days, assuming that the Government so contrived that they laid the draft at an inconvenient time for the House, is a very serious objection.
This is a difficulty which with sensible administration could easily be avoided, but there is a difficulty in which the Government and subsequent Governments will find themselves if they do not accept this Amendment, for in the matters of detail—importance, but detail—with which many of these Regulations will deal there will be scope for representations. There will be scope even after all the trouble which is given in the Department in working out Regulations. There will be scope for views, for pressures and for change of mind on this or that matter on the Government's part.


However, as the Bill stands so far as concerns paragraph (a), they would have no means of amending a Regulation, however much they might desire to do so, without withdrawing it and making a new one. There is a strong inhibition on any Government against the procedure of withdrawing a Regulation they have just made and admitting that they have had second thoughts and then making a new regulation.
This difficulty does not arise if the draft procedure proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Merton and Morden (Mr. Humphrey Atkins) applies. One of the chief witnesses in the Select Committee. Mr. Davies, a member of the departmental working party, has something of interest to say on this point. On Question No. 46, in the Minutes of Evidence, when dealing with the point when Parliament might wish to amend a regulation whether it was in draft or already made, Mr. Davies said:
If Parliament expressed the view that a regulation ought to be changed, the Minister would withdraw it.
That is the embarrassing and rather difficult case I have mentioned. Mr. Davies went on:
If it were a draft there would be no difficulty about that. A fresh draft would then be laid before Parliament with appropriate changes.
I seriously suggest as a matter of administrative convenience which may inure to the benefit of any hon. Member for all I know, that there would be a great advantage in the Government coming before Parliament with draft Regulations on these subjects. If the Regulation had been already made—this was the telling point made by my hon. Friend—immediately it was made and had come into force, which, as the Under Secretary said, could be on the same day, people would start to be enlisted under the new conditions. The argument against then withdrawing and replacing the Regulation by an amended Regulation would be overwhelmingly strong.
So we might have the absurd position that both sides of the House might think that a mistake had been made and both sides wished that the regulation had been drawn somewhat differently, but by practical considerations they would be stopped from putting it right. That is a

very real case which could occur in practice.
There is here a point of importance which goes beyond this Bill and applies to a great deal of the legislation which increasingly is passing through this House. My hon. Friend pointed out that although the earlier Regulations would tend to have the draft procedure safeguard because they would be amending statutes, with the progress of time they would be regulations replacing Regulations, and, therefore, this safeguard would fall away. This, I believe, is an erosion of Parliamentary function about which we have to be very vigilant: in the first stages safeguards are available—the Bill says that if a statute is altered by Regulation there should be this or that safeguard—but this safeguard works once only. Once the Statute has been amended something which, in the past, required to be done by Statute can forever in future be done by Regulation without any of the initial safeguards.
It will occur to your, Sir Eric, that this is by no means the only case in recent legislation where the power to do by Regulation what hitherto has been done by Statute has been introduced under cover of safeguards in the first instance, which will thereafter disappear.
On all these grounds, I think it fortunate that this is not the last stage of the Bill and that the Government will have the opportunity to reconsider the balance of advantage in this matter. It is a balance of advantage which is not on one side of the House or the other. It is a balance of advantage where there are considerations from the point of view of this Administration or any Administration. I hope that before the Bill passes beyond the reach of amendment, the Government will, with a fresh mind, reconsider this point in the light of what my hon. Friend said and the arguments I have further adduced.

Amendment negatived.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4.—(POSTPONEMENT, IN CERTAIN CASES, OF DISCHARGE OR TRANSFER TO ROYAL FLEET RESERVE OF RATINGS.)

Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Humphrey Atkins: There are a number of matters on Clause 4 on which we should take the opportunity of questioning the Government. This Clause and several following Clauses, notably Clauses 5, 12 and 13, deal with the continuation in service of men in the Forces or, as the Royal Navy and the Royal Marines appear to prefer to say, the postponement of discharge of ratings, which seems to me to be exactly the same thing. These Clauses provide that in certain circumstances men can be kept in the Armed Forces beyond the period of their normal engagement. A little clarification is needed.
There have recently been considerable alterations in the arrangements for calling out the reserves in conditions of danger and the notable feature in the Reserve Forces Bill, which has not long left the House, was the replacement of the rather cumbersome procedure of a Royal Proclamation by enabling reserves to be called out by order under the hand of the Secretary of State.
I presume that these powers in Clauses 4, 5, 12 and 13 deal in the same way with the retention of men in the Forces when that sort of situation occurs, but Clause 4 seems to me to be rather different. It deals with the postponement of discharge of naval ratings and it seems to me to be different in several respects. In the first place, subsection (2) provides for the retention of ratings in the Royal Navy for one year only. It sets out three conditions under which this may be done: if

(a), a state of war exists between Her Majesty and a foreign power; or
(b), warlike operations are in preparation or in progress; or
(c) men of the Royal Naval Reserve are called into actual service.

In reading Clause 5, which deals with the same sort of matters and is entitled "Continuation of service in Royal Navy in imminent national danger", one finds that Her Majesty has power to retain people in the Royal Navy indefinitely in certain circumstances. What I do not understand is that Clause 5 states:
If it appears to Her Majesty that national danger is imminent or that a great emergency has arisen, She may by order, signified under the hand of the Secretary of State, provide that ratings
should stay in the service—indefinitely. How is this?

Under Clause 5, if a national danger is imminent or a great emergency has arisen, Her Majesty can retain ratings in the Navy indefinitely. Under Clause 4, if a state of war exists between Her Majesty and a foreign Power, she can retain ratings in the Royal Navy for only one year. Surely, no greater national danger or emergency could be imagined than a state of war. I do not, therefore, see why Clause 4(1,a) appears at all, because the situation seems to me to be entirely covered by Clause 5.
My second point is that men can be retained in the Royal Navy only when men in the Royal Naval Reserve are called into actual service. That again, it seems, is done by an Order under the hand of the Secretary of State. Again, it appears to me to be unnecessary because the situation is covered by Clause 5. I would like to know from the Under-Secretary of State when the power in Clause 4 will be used in view of the fact that the power exists also in Clause 5.
My third point relates to Clause 4(1,b), which enables people to be retained in the Navy for one year when
warlike operations are in preparation or in progress".
Subsection (1) goes on to say that
An exercise, by virtue of paragraph (b), above, of the power conferred by this subsection shall be reported to Parliament forthwith.
It appears to me that this requires no Order under the hand of the Secretary of State. It merely requires the diktat of, presumably, the Under-Secretary, who then has to come to Parliament and tell us what he has done. It gives him very wide power.
I do not know what a strict interpretation of
warlike operations are in preparation
would be, but the very maintenance of a Royal Navy involves warlike operations being in preparation. What is the Navy preparing for if it is not preparing for warlike operations?
It appears on the face of it, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman, or any Defence Minister, has the power to retain men in the Royal Navy for one year more or less whenever he likes. I agree that he has to come and tell Parliament about it, but I am not at all sure what we can do about it. It is not as though there will be a Statutory Instrument against which


we can pray. How can we stop the Minister doing it if we do not like it? I assume that it might be done by tabling a Motion to say that he should not do it, but it seems to me, in the first place, to be very wide and, in the second place, to be rather vague. The Minister should give us an explanation of what Clause 4 is all about in view of the other Clauses in the Bill.

Captain Walter Elliot: My queries are similar to those of my hon. Friend the Member for Merton and Morden (Mr. Humphrey Atkins), who has referred to paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) of subsection (1) and to the Navy being in a constant state of preparation. Whether or not that is the case, the fact is that in these modern days, year after year and all over the world, the Navy can be said to be taking part in warlike operations, whether it is off Aden or in Indonesia with Royal Marine commandos and the like.
It seems to me that a rating could at any time be made to spend another year beyond his date of discharge. For many ratings, an extra year could be a serious matter. If a man hopes to go into another job outside the Service, the opportunity might be lost if he is retained. He might have a housing problem, in which an extra year could exacerbate difficulties.
I know only too well from experience that if a man on the spot loses a particularly valuable rating, perhaps a technician or, possibly, merely a rating who can be employed on storing shells, he is very much inclined, quite naturally, to think of his own convenience and the delay in getting a relief sent out to, say, the Far East if a man has to be sent home.
Subsection (3) states that a rating
may be retained in service in the Royal Navy for such period as the competent authority may order.
Who is that competent authority who can so order? Is it the commander-in-chief of the station, who would probably act on the advice of a captain of a ship who was directly affected? I would like to know whether, in what might be a serious matter, the rating concerned has a right of appeal to a higher authority.
Lastly, could the Minister tell the Committee—I know that I am asking at rather short notice and I shall quite understand

if he cannot do so now—whether, during the last year or the last two or three years, when there has been what I call this state of constant war on a small scale, this Order has been applied to a large number of ratings or to certain ratings. I ask because, although I do not wish to make a mountain out of a molehill, to the individual this can be very serious.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: The Committee will appreciate after hearing the detail of some of the questions raised by the hon. Member for Merton and Morden (Mr. Humphrey Atkins) why I was so grateful to him for having given me previous notice of them. As he properly pointed out, what he said ties up a good deal with the comparable provisions in the Reserve Forces Act. Two quite separate situations have to be taken into account. The first relates to imminent national danger or great emergency. This is generally associated with general mobilisation. The second situation is that in which
…warlike operations are in preparation or in progress…
That position is associated with lesser emergencies, such as a N.A.T.O. simple alert or a limited war.
Perhaps I could take first the lesser situation of warlike operations in preparation or in progress. Section 6 of the Reserve Forces Act provides that in this situation certain reservists may be called out for permanent service in any part of the world. A Queen's Order is not required for this as regards the Regular reserves, as the call-up will be of a limited nature. Section 7(2) of the Reserve Forces Act, however, provides for the exercise of this power to be reported to Parliament forthwith. I am advised on this point that this brings the call-up to the notice of the House, and in the House of Commons we have various means by which the whole matter could be discussed.
Section 9(1) of the Army and the Air Force Acts, 1955, provides for the retention in service of a Regular soldier or airman when men of the reserve are called out on permanent service. It is true that Section 225(2) of the Army Act, 1955, and Section 223(2) of the Air Force Act, 1955, provided that a warlike operations call-out would not count as a call-out on permanent service for this purpose


but this was reversed by Section 15(1) of the Reserve Forces Act, 1966. Thus the retention of Regular soldiers and airmen in the lesser situation is already provided for as long as reservists are called out. Their retention is not specifically required to be reported to Parliament, but the call-out of the reserves which justifies the retention does have to be so reported forthwith.
The Navy is in a different position, as there is at present no Naval Reserve which could be called out in the lesser situation. That is why it is necessary to provide in Clause 4(1,b) of the Bill for the retention in service of Regular ratings when warlike operations are in preparation or progress. Once again, a Queen's Order is not required, but, again, as in the other case, the exercise of this power must be reported to Parliament forthwith. If I recall correctly, there was much discussion on the meaning of "forthwith" when the House dealt with the Reserve Forces Bill.
Turning now to the greater situation of imminent national danger or a great emergency, Section 5 of the Reserve Forces Act provides that the Queen may, by Order signified under the hand of the Secretary of State, authorise the calling out of any reserve force for permanent service in any part of the world. The occasion of this Order has to be reported to Parliament forthwith. The retention in service of Regular ratings, soldiers and airmen in this greater situation is provided for, in the case of the Navy, in Clause 5, and in the case of the Army and the Royal Air Force in Clause 12. Here, again, a Queen's Order is needed, and the occasion of this Order must be reported to Parliament forthwith.
45 p.m.
I might make the point that in the greater situation it is unlikely that men would be so retained in service without reservists being called out. Thus, in practice, as I am advised, it is more likely that the Government of the day would rely on Clause 4(l,c) of this Armed Forces Bill and on Section 9(1) of the 1955 Army and Air Force Acts than on Clauses 5 and 12 of this Bill.
It will be seen that whether or not a Queen's Order is needed will depend on the gravity of the situation. I think,

however, that this point is of less importance than the fact that provision has been made for the exercise of all these powers to be reported to Parliament forthwith. Thus hon. Members would be able to question Ministers about their use, whether by Queen's Order or in the other way. Unlike the recall of reservists, which affects a large number of men immediately, the retention powers only affect men as and when they become due to leave full-time service.
I now turn to the smaller points that have been raised. I hope to deal with all of them but, if I do not, I will make sure that the hon. Member is informed in writing. First, the 12-month limit laid down in Clause 4(2) applies only to sailors due to be discharged, as defined in subsection (8). Clause 5 applies to a sailor due to be transferred to the Reserve. Here there is no time limit, and the reason for this will probably be obvious from my previous words.
The hon. and gallant Member for Carshalton (Captain W. Elliot) asked who the "competent authority" is. This is dealt with in Clause 14—"Interpretation of Part II". Subsection (1), after defining a rating and a commanding officer, states that a
…'competent authority' means the Defence Council or an officer prescribed by regulations of the Defence Council to act for the purposes of this Part of this Act.
In general, by law, the competent authority will be the Defence Council which will be acting in the light of whether the greater or less of the national emergencies exists at the time.
I know that it does not absolve me from giving explanations, but I assure hon. Members that one thing I have learned since being at the M.O.D. is that there is constantly-sitting working party which looks at every aspect of the practical working. If, in this case, there are problems which should be looked at in terms of length of time—I am advised that there are not, but if there should be—there are now procedures as under Clause 2 whereby they can be rectified.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 5 to 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 9.—(CONSENTS TO ENTRY OF YOUNG PERSONS INTO ROYAL NAVY.)

Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Miss Joan Lestor: I want to comment on this Clause for two reasons. First, I want to give an example of the sort of case I am talking about—and I have already informed the Minister of a particular case. Secondly, I want to discuss the principle involved in allowing young men below the age of 17½, with the consent of their parents or guardians, and so on, to enter the Armed Forces and to be bound to serve therein for 11 or more years.
We are living in a society in which, judging by our debates on education, and the like, both sides of the Committee feel strongly that decisions about the future of a young person should be delayed for as long as possible. Throughout our schools we do not encourage people to commit themselves to a particular avenue of activity until they are pretty sure that they know what they are doing.
It is perfectly acceptable that when young people wish to go into the Armed Forces before they are of the statutory age, they should be allowed to do so. But I feel strongly about two aspects of this matter, and I should be glad to hear the Minister's comments on them. First, within the first three months of service a person can apply for discharge if he finds himself unhappy or if the way of life is unacceptable to him, but decisions taken at the age of 16 may be very different from the decisions which would be taken at the age of 18. Within three months of beginning his service, a young man, only 16, may still feel that he has taken the right decision, but 18 months or so later, by the time that he is 18, he may realise that he has made a grave mistake, and yet he will find it exceedingly difficult in those circumstances to get out of the Armed Forces.
It seems to me in the circumstances unfair that the time served before the statutory age should not be counted among the years of service which he is entitled to reckon after he has reached the required age. If a young man or young woman decides to stay in the Forces after the age of 18, having served 18 months or so before that age, then I

feel that this service should count towards the total service. If not, we are in a situation in which a person may make a decision at the age of 16 and be bound for eleven years or more by that decision.
I can think of no avenue of activity in civilian life in which we encourage people to make this sort of contract, and it seems to me that, with all that is known about the emotional and psychological development of young people, those responsible for recruiting youngsters into the Armed Forces should bear in mind the fact that between the ages of 15 and 18 a tremendous change can take place in outlook and interest. It is not easy for a person by other means to obtain his discharge if, by the time that the three months have passed, he has not applied for discharge.
Without going into very great detail, I should like to refer again, as I have referred in Questions—and the hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Fisher) has also raised this matter—to the case of Leading Mechanical Engineer Mayhew, who is a typical example of a person whose whole life is being disrupted because he is bound to a contract which he made at the age of 16, with the consent of his parents, but when, in my view and in his view, he did not realise the full implications of what he was doing, and when he did not appreciate that within a period of time he would develop and change into a person who not only found himself unhappy in the Forces but who had proved himself capable of making a far greater contribution to society if he were allowed to contract out of the Forces and to pursue the activities which he now wishes to pursue.
This is an example of a principle, and I think that it is in order. Leading Mechanical Engineer Mayhew entered the Forces at the age of 16, in 1957. Two years later, at the age of 18, he applied for his discharge and was told that he had another nine years to serve. I would emphasise that whereas at the age of 16 a career in the Armed Forces may be attractive and acceptable, by the age of 18 it may occur to a young man that he has made a mistake in joining the Forces.
After that, unfortunately, this young man deserted. I will not quote the long correspondence which I and others have had with the Department about this man,


but the fact that he deserted, under what I consider to be emotional stress, has been noted against him, we have been told in his further applications for discharge. My view is that if a young person is driven to the lengths of deserting because he is so unhappy in a situation, this should help his plea for discharge in some way rather than militate against it.
However, he gave himself up and went back, and after detention he went abroad. He then studied, under certain difficult conditions, and obtained A-levels in pure and applied mathematics. Since then he has received two offers of places at a university. His recommendation for discharge was made by his commanding officer, but the Forces have consistently refused to release him.
Without going into all the history, it seems to me that when a young person has shown himself to find life in the Armed Forces to be unacceptable, his case should be given careful consideration. The period of three months did not apply in the Navy when he made his contract; it is only now in the Bill. In any event, he did not apply for his discharge within that period. But great consideration should be given to the factors which have operated in a particular case. It seems to me that it would be helpful for us to be given some clarification of the situation as it applies to young people, as distinct from people of mature years, who no doubt make these contracts well knowing what they are doing.
It appears from the case of Leading Mechanical Engineer Mayhew that there may have been misunderstanding by my right hon. Friend and by those who have asked Questions, but the fact remains that in answer to a Question I was told that he would not miss his place at the university, and yet I was subsequently told that this did not mean this year's university; it meant next year's university place, if he applied and if he were granted a place. The whole correspondence and discussion of the case has become somewhat confused and has not helped the attitude of people towards the Armed Forces when the Forces are dealing with young people who join under the required age and later feel that they have made a mistake.

From the number of people who have approached me on this matter and from hon. Members to whom I have spoken, I do not think that we have a situation in which hundreds of people in the Armed Fores are desperate to get out of the Armed Forces, but we ought to bear in mind that if we encourage—as we do encourage—young men, in particular, to join the Armed Forces at an age when I consider that they are not capable of making a decision, and if that binds them for 11 years or more, then equally we ought to be able to include a little humanity in our departmental deliberations when we are faced with applications from the same people to contract out of an agreement which they made, in my view and in that of most educationists, at an age when they were not totally responsible for what they were doing.

5.0 p.m.

The Minister of Defence for the Royal Navy (Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu): I fully agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Miss Lestor) that all cases such as that which she has described at some length should be looked at with humanity in the Ministry of Defence—and they are. They are looked at with the very greatest care. But one of the elements of humanity is to be fair not only to a particular man, but to all sorts of people who may find themselves in the position in which Leading Mechanical Engineer Mayhew finds himself.
My hon. Friend is trying to make me allow this rating to jump the queue, and I will not do it. There are similar people with whose cases I have dealt who have precisely the same claim on my sympathies and the sympathies of my hon. Friend, and the only way of being fair to all of them in the present circumstances is to make sure that the rules are strictly and fairly applied, equally to everybody who is affected by them.
My hon. Friend dealt with more general principles than this case—and I shall come back to the case in a moment. She was, in part, questioning the whole idea of boys' service in any of the three Services and saying that modern thought tended to suggest that we should not have people making up their minds at a very early age. I am not sure that this is, in fact, modern thought. It certainly


is not modern practice. In outside industry managements are most anxious to get hold of youngsters when they come from school and train them from the word "go". They find this is much more effective from the point of view of the firm, and it is also true of the services.
We find—this is not an overpowering argument, but it is a fact—that if boys do come to us straight from school, they fit into service life more easily than do those who come in as adults. I have had a check made and I find that those who come in in boys time, far from being upset and psychologically disturbed, settle down so well that they tend to reach higher rank and have a better career altogether than do those who come in in adult time.
My hon. Friend also spoke, and spoke feelingly, about the length of the contract. I think she rather wishes that the Services could be similar to civilian life, that one can walk out in a matter of a week or so if one does not like the boss. We have to recognise that there are distinctions between civilian and Service life and that Service life necessitates a considerable length of contract. Boys and adults come into the Services and we give them a fairly long training. Sometimes it might be as long as four years, costing a great deal of money and providing them with tremendous skills. I think that we have the right, after such length of training, to expect a period of service at any rate in return for their training.
There is a far more important factor about the Services, which is that one has to be able to plan ahead. One has to be able to know that one can move troops, or move a squadron, or move a ship at a certain time to a certain place, and unless there is a man to do a job we are likely to suffer from very severe operational penalties. We might find at a particular moment that because somebody dislikes something which has been done by the Government, the whole lot might want to walk out and ships could not be sent where they were needed. If one thinks about it, one will see that there really must be some difference in one's approach to Service life compared with what happens in civilian life.
I am quite prepared to concede that this does sometimes involve people in the

Services in considerable hardship and we do whatever we can to mitigate that hardship. If a boy is so obviously and persistently homesick that he is never likely to settle down in the Service, the commanding officer of his training establishment has the discretion to say, "Back you go home without penalty". That is done in cases of severe homesickness.
As my hon. Friend knows, we are now proposing to introduce by Regulation under the Bill a further relaxation affecting the Navy in that after a three-month period a boy will be allowed to buy himself out of the service for a sum of about £20. This is a good thing which my predecessor was most insistent on, and the credit for this change should certainly go to him. It gives a boy a chance to come into the Service for a "look-see," to see what it is like, and to get some idea of what it is like. To that extent it is a big improvement on the existing procedure where he signs on without really having any idea of what it is like.
If he does not take advantage of this break and goes on, he has, if it is necessary, if it really becomes essential to him, other possible ways in which he can get out of his contract. One is compassionate discharge, which has to be administered fairly strictly. It has to be shown that it is essential, that for the health and the welfare of his immediate dependants he should be at home. If he can show that, and after very strict inquiries quite a number come out under this heading every year, he can break his contract.
Finally, there is discharge by purchase—not compassionate discharge—under which Mayhew's release will be approved next July. Here again, we have to stick closely to some fairly strict rules. There are plenty of people who, at one time or another—nothing like a majority, but a sizeable number—want to get out by this means. If we let everybody out without let or hindrance, a sort of free gangway, it would impose not only operational penalties by not being able to put ships at sea, but it would also put an excessive strain on those in the shortage category branch who have to carry on doing the work of those who have gone out on discharge by purchase. In a disciplined Service we have to have somewhat different rules from those in civilian life, and


those rules, as far as we possibly can, giving the manning position, are administered as humanely and as fairly as possible.
There was one thing which my hon. Friend said, which, oddly enough, had occurred to me. I had not been able to understand why boys time does not count as full service. I have thought about this and can find no satisfactory answer. I am, therefore, asking my Department to look at this and to consider whether we can bring in a Regulation. I cannot pretend that I have satisfied my hon. Friend, but I hope that as a result of what I have said she will understand more of the difficulties of the Service, and I hope, above all, that she will believe me when I say that inside the limits of what we are able to do we do look at these cases with the utmost concern.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 10–14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 15.—(TAKING INTO CUSTODY PERSONS ARRESTED OR LIKELY TO BE ARRESTED BY OVERSEAS AUTHORITIES.)

Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Philip Goodhart: The Clause deals with the vital question of relations between British Service men and civilian authorities in other lands. I apologise for not having given the Minister warning of the point that I am raising, but if he could say what action is contemplated under subsection (6), with particular reference to paragraph (c), I would be grateful.
I should certainly understand it if the hon. Gentleman were unable to answer me without notice, but I should also be grateful if he could say a few words about the other side of the Clause, so to speak. In other words, I ask him to say something about the work which has been going on to try to protect the position of British Service men overseas by reaching agreement on their legal status with certain countries.
I am particularly worried by the possibility of trouble in the Persian Gulf area, an area into which we are moving an increasing number of troops and where the question of legal and criminal

jurisdiction over British Service men is, to put it mildly, complex and somewhat uncertain.
I am sure that in this area there will be a substantial attempt by hostile provocateurs to stir up trouble between the civilian population and British Service men. It is remarkable that attempts so far to stir up trouble between our Forces there and the civilian authorities have had such little success. I gather that, in fact, there has been no friction and that it has been possible to deal with the trouble which has arisen there promptly and effectively by procedures similar to those outlined in the Clause.
It is a matter of satisfaction and pride that the relations between British Service men and inhabitants of the Gulf area should have been so good. However, it is not a matter of surprise, because over the last 20 years relations between British Service men and civilians overseas have been quite remarkably good, in the face of great provocation, in a number of extremely difficult areas—Palestine, Cyprus, Kenya and other parts of the Middle East.
Too much reliance should not be placed on the geniality of British Service men in their relations with civil authorities. I am concerned about what may soon happen in Aden, where British Service men are only too well aware that, if they manage to arrest terrorists, no form of effective punishment can be meted out to those they catch, because of the breakdown of the civil courts and the knowledge that our military presence there is soon to evaporate.
In considering the Clause, it should be recognised that a breakdown of civil authorities in a country can put a savage strain on the traditional good sense and patience that British Service men have so often shown in so many parts of the world.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: I deal, first, with the last point made by the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart), about the Persian Gulf. There are a number of different rulers in the Federal area, but I am advised that as part of—not a new move, but a redeployment in the area—full discussions are taking place on the point to which the hon. Gentleman


referred. I am also advised that we are fully aware of the difficulty in that area. I assure the hon. Gentleman that this will be very closely considered.
Subsection (6) says:
The Defence Council may make regulations with respect to all or any of the following matters "—
and then it refers to the manner in which persons are arrested and to the making of reports.
May I give some background information on this point. The whole question of Servicemen and civilians subject to Service law abroad raises problems. There are in most places international agreements relating to the status of British Forces abroad. On the whole, these provide for Servicemen, civilians and their dependants against whom the overseas authorities intend to exercise jurisdiction to be taken into British Service custody pending trial by a Service court.
The difficulty which has arisen is that at the moment there is no statutory authority by which this can be done. Up till now Servicemen or civilians have been taken into custody by the Service authorities and with the Serviceman's consent. This of itself raises many problems as to the meaning of "consent". This is the only lawful arrangement possible at present, unless the custody is authorised by local law.
This is why the opportunity has been taken in the Bill to regulate this practice by Statute and to give the Service authorities power to hold a man in custody so that the United Kingdom can implement its obligation under these agreements.
This again raises many problems as to how long the individual should be kept in custody. The local area concerned may be very tardy in deciding to act. There are a hundred and one problems. Therefore, subsection (6) provides that this shall be dealt with by Regulation. It is our intention to make Regulations requiring anyone exercising the power of arrest or taking into custody under the Clause to report at once by signal to the Ministry of Defence. Regular reports at frequent intervals will also be required.
The requirement to report is one of the safeguards against the power of keeping

in custody being abused, if, for instance, the overseas authorities delay in bringing the arrested person to trial. If satisfactory progress with the trial of the arrested person is not made, the Government will take such steps as may be possible to hasten proceedings through the Foreign Office, or the C.R.O., whichever might be appropriate. It is not possible to be precise in the subsection. The whole problem is difficult.
Subsection (6) is included to ensure that matters are handled properly in the case of someone in an invidious position, or perhaps someone not in an invidious position, who has come under arrest into custody, in exactly the same way as if he were under Service law of the former sort. The subsection attempts to make absolutely sure that the person concerned shall not be held for too long. In the world today there are many occasions when this might happen. We have a Visiting Forces Agreement with the Germans because of the large number of civilians we have there. I am advised that this works perfectly properly.
Again, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, the problem might occur in other parts of the world. We are looking into the particular case he mentioned. In the wider context, the purpose of subsection (6) is to make absolutely sure that no British subject—I will not say "languishes", but is in custody for too long. It is a question of balance. It cannot be laid down precisely. This is the purpose of the Clause.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 16.—(POWERS OF COMMAND OVER HER MAJESTY'S FORCES.)

Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Humphrey Atkins: The Clause gives Her Majesty power to make Regulations for
…the vesting of command over Her Majesty's forces, or any part or member thereof, in persons being members of forces of countries outside Her dominions…"—
in other words, foreigners.

The Clause is very straightforward, although I am not entirely sure why the Act of Settlement creeps into it. I believe that it is not new for the Army and


Royal Air Force, but is new for the Royal Navy. It appears in earlier Army and Air Force Acts, but the Navy being peculiarly the property of the Crown it has always been deemed that Her Majesty can do almost what she likes with it and that it is not necessary to lay down this power.

Evidence was submitted to the Select Committee on the necessity for the Clause, and when the witnesses were examined the matter was further gone into. In its evidence the Defence Council said as recorded at page 11 of the Select Committee's Report:
At present, when a non-British officer is put in command of a British force, the powers of discipline remain with British officers, so that each man still has a British commanding officer. This practice will continue.

I ask the Minister to confirm for the record that it will continue.

I can readily see why it is necessary to have this power and how, in the Army and Air Force, small detachments of men will frequently be under the command of foreigners. The more we join organisations like N.A.T.O. and S.E.A.T.O. the more this is likely to happen. But it will be comforting to the Committee to know that in every case the men will have a British commanding officer.

The possibility of there being mixed-manned ships came up in the Select Committee, and a number of questions were asked about it by me. I particularly direct the Minister's attention to the examination of witnesses in the Select Committee's Report at page 56, Question 236, where I asked the Director General of Naval Personal Services what would happen in the case of a mixed-manned ship and his answer was:
Well, we have to make special arrangements in that particular case.

I should like to know if the Government still have any thought of this proposition in mind, and if they have what special arrangements they can make. If they give, as I hope they will, the assurance for which I have asked, namely that every British man will have a British commanding officer whoever is commanding his movements, how will this work in a mixed-manned ship?

Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: I sincerely hope that the mixed-manned force is a hypothetical question, but in the event of

it happening I do not think that there will be any particular difficulty, because there would be more than one British seaman in a mixed-manned ship, one imagines, and one of those two would be senior. He would therefore be the commanding officer in the sense of carrying out discipline, though not of giving orders.
If the offence were so great that it was beyond the rank of the senior British rating or officer to deal with it, the man would be withdrawn from the ship and dealt with by higher authority exactly as in the case of the "Claude V. Ricketts". That was the arrangement there. The hon. Gentleman asks if I will confirm in the House the assurance given to the Committee, and I do so very gladly.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 17 to 20 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 21.—(SUBSTITUTION OF FINE BY WAY OF PUNISHMENT FOR FORFEITURE OF SUMS FROM PAY.)

Question proposed. That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Humphrey Atkins: The Clause deals with the new punishment of a fine provided by the Bill in the Army and Royal Air Force, and the corresponding Clause for the Royal Navy is Clause 32. So far as I can see they are more or less the same. This is a new punishment and replaces some of those that went before. Until now fines could be imposed only on men in the Army and the Royal Air Force and only for the offence of drunkenness, with a limit of £2 when the matter is dealt with summarily and £5, I think, when it is dealt with by court-martial. The other two relative payments are forfeiture of pay which is used on active service only and a punishment called forfeiture of a sum from pay.
It seems to me, as it seemed to the Defence Council, for that is why it has brought this forward, that a fine and forfeiture of a sum from pay are really very much the same. I understand that it proposes to do away with the punishment of forfeiture of a sum from pay and replace it with a fine which will therefore no longer be inflicted only for the offence of drunkenness. I understand that the


other difference is that now all men in all three Services can be fined. Up to now, naval ratings could not be fined. I also understand that all officers can now be fined. For some reason which I entirely fail to understand, the only officers who could be fined until now were naval officers, which seemed to me most unfair.
The maximum fine provided for in the Bill is 14 days' pay where it is awarded by a man's commanding officer, and 28 days' pay where it is awarded by court-martial, subject in both cases to the limitation that if the offence for which the man is fined is a civil offence, the maximum fine cannot exceed the maximum that would be awarded in a civil case.
One other difference is that in the Royal Navy a commanding officer has power to fine a man up to 28 days' pay—not 14—but if he awards a punishment of over 14 days' pay he must obtain his flag officer's approval. This is quite acceptable, because in many respects naval discipline takes account of the fact that a ship may be very far away from its home base, and the possibility of setting up a court-martial is more remote.
I have two or three questions on the Clause. First, I presume that the list of offences for which a man can be fined is the same as the list of offences for which up to now he has either been fined or awarded a punishment of forfeiture of a sum from pay. Is there any extension of that list? Are most of the offences also civilian offences? For some Service offences there is I think—there certainly used to be—the punishment of stoppage of pay even when not on active service. For example, absence without leave involved that and not a fine.
I should like to clear up whether stoppage of pay or forfeiture of pay and fines should be confined to the same list of offences as before, and whether it is mostly civilian offences for which a man can in future be fined. On the whole the Select Committee came to the conclusion that the proposed system of fines was a good idea and we on this side of the Committee accept that it is a sensible method of maintaining discipline in the Armed Forces. There are many offences for which, if this new penalty is approved by the Committee and the Bill goes forward, a man will be fined instead of

being sent to prison or kept in detention or in a cell. That is obviously a good idea as the Service is not deprived of him and does not have to provide another man to look after him while he is locked up. This is a very sensible provision, but I have three questions about its application.
5.30 p.m.
First, we are told that a fine can be awarded up to a maximum of 14 or 28 days' gross pay. What is the definition of gross pay? Clearly, it would not include such things as marriage or children's allowances. Does it include any specialist allowance? Does it include any extra money a man has been awarded for long service or good conduct?
Next, the question of tax. We may not have fully realised the implications of the Clause here. When a man is punished by forfeiture of his pay, he loses that pay and, since he never gets it, he cannot be taxed on it. On the other hand, if he is fined a sum of money, he has to pay the fine out of his taxed income. At least, I think so. I should be grateful if the Minister would confirm that that is so.
Third, the method proposed for recovery of fines. This was gone into by the Select Committee. The Committee was told that the rate of recovery of a fine is left to the discretion of the man's commanding officer or, presumably, when it is awarded by court martial, by the court martial, and that Regulations under the 1955 Acts laid down the minimum proportion or sum which a man must be allowed to retain, in other words, the minimum proportion of his day's pay or the minimum sum per day beyond which he cannot be fined.
The Regulations lay down for officers the proportion of one-third of their pay or 7s. per day, whichever be the greater. For soldiers and airmen the sum is 4s. per day, with nothing whatever about a proportion. The Select Committee was told that the Defence Council is reviewing this matter and proposes in due course to change the Regulations. In paragraph 14 of its Report, the Select Committee recommended
that for both officers and both other ranks in all three Services the minimum should in all cases be expressed as a proportion rather than as a fixed sum".
Will the Minister confirm that these regulations will be prepared without delay? Since this is a new punishment in


the Navy and the Navy, I understand, will have to make new regulations on the subject, while it is being done for the Navy perhaps the Minister will take it as a good opportunity to do it for the other Services as well. I am sure that this is a better idea. The Select Committee thought so, and I hope that the Minister will confirm that that will be done.

Mr. James Allason: I warmly welcome the system by which a tax rebate is to be given on fines by calling them forfeiture of pay. Will the Minister suggest to the Attorney-General that this might well be extended into civilian life? It would be welcomed by motorists throughout the country.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: It is not for me to comment on that last point, and I shall come straight away to the question of proportions.
Clauses 21 and 32 are related, referring to the same material, and they have two purposes. The first is to simplify the law by removing the confusing and anomalous position in which there are three names—fines for drunkenness, forfeiture of a sum from pay and while on active service forfeiture of pay—for what are, in substance, the same punishments. The second purpose is to increase the amount of the fines which may be awarded in certain circumstances to a more realistic figure. There are cases today in which courts-martial find that they have to impose a less appropriate penalty than a fine because they do not have power to impose a fine which would be appropriate to the offence. I am sure that, in general, the Committee will welcome the removal of this anomaly.
The main safeguard against the imposition of excessive fines is, of course, the good sense of the court-martial and our well proved review and appeal procedure. If, on further examination, a fine is found to be excessive, the injustice can be remedied very simply by repayment of a part of it, a process which may not be possible with other forms of punishment.
I can give the hon. Member for Merton and Morden (Mr. Humphrey Atkins) the assurance for which he asks. The Secretary of State has accepted the recommendation of the Select Committee that the minimum rate of pay to be left to an offender when a fine is being recovered should be expressed as a proportion of

his daily rate of pay rather than as a fixed sum. As the Committee knows, this matter is now being looked at. The outcome will eventually find regulation form and will be dealt with in the way discussed. The ideas which the hon. Gentleman put to the Committee will be taken into account.
I was asked to explain the meaning of gross pay. This is covered by Clause 21(6) and Clause 32(3). Gross pay means the basic pay prior to tax or other deductions—including, for example, a fine—appropriate to a man's rank, branch or mustering, plus increments of pay and any additional pay, for example, flying pay or trade pay, but excluding allowances such as marriage allowance or local overseas allowance. In short, gross pay means pay as opposed to allowances, and gross means prior to deductions.
Next, the question of tax. The amount of the fine is based on gross pay before deduction of Income Tax. The fine is, however, recoverable from net pay after deduction of Income Tax. But it would not be true to say that a fine is a more severe punishment than forfeiture of a sum from pay since a forfeiture of a sum from pay has always been recoverable from net income. It is, however, a more severe penalty than a forfeiture of pay which can be awarded in active service conditions, and it is also a concomitant of certain other penalties such as detention or imprisonment. In that case, as part of the pay itself is no longer payable, it does not attract Income Tax. However, the substitution of a fine for forfeiture of a sum from pay will not affect the severity of the punishment.
I must say that, when I looked into this matter after it was brought to my notice, I realised that this was something which I had always imagined to be the other way round. Looking back over the discussions of the past year, I am surprised to find how many other people who served in the Armed Forces suffered a similar misapprehension.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the offences for which the fines would be imposed. The fines will be awarded for the same offences as forfeiture of a sum from pay, and this will include drunkenness, though the crime of drunkenness by itself, or a fine for drunkenness, has gone and will now appear as one among many.


Fines are new for the Navy, as I think the hon. Gentleman already knows. If I have omitted any point which he raised, perhaps he will let me know afterwards.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 22 to 24 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 25.—(JURISDICTION OF CIVIL COURTS.)

Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Allason: I beg to move, in page 20, line 9, to leave out Clause 25.

The Deputy Chairman (Mr. Sydney Irving): Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot move his Amendment. He can only vote against the Clause when it is put to the Committee if he wishes to do so.

Mr. Allason: I am grateful, Mr. Irvine. In Section 133 of both the Army Act and the Air Force Act, 1955, the doctrine is laid down that nothing restricts trial by civil court even though there may have been a previous military trial, but that when, in these circumstances, the civil court moves on to sentence, it should take account of the punishment already awarded to the man. This arrangement works well in allowing swift military justice in cases of breach of discipline whilst preserving the ultimate rights of the civil court to try the man.
The effect of Clause 25 is to withdraw from the jurisdiction of the civil courts a member of the Armed Forces who has had any military trial at all for substantially the same offence. Here, I take the word "substantially" to mean not a change in the normal civil law of autrefois acquit—exactly the same offence—but an offence of a similar character, depending on the circumstances being the same. This is relevant when we consider the very large number of military offences under the Acts.
Two considerations arise. First, there is the question of introducing the doctrine of autrefois acquit to a military trial to prevent a subsequent civil trial. The second is expanding the doctrine of

autrefois acquit from exactly the same offence to substantially the same offence.
The principle of law with which we are concerned has been that civil law is dominant over military law and if this is to be changed the House should give it very careful consideration. But I do not think that there is any intention of changing the doctrine. Military law creates a number of military offences which are similar to civil offences but are considered the more serious because they are in relation to the Services and consequently more suitably dealt with by a military court.
For example, striking a superior officer clearly constitutes a civil offence but it has very important connotations with Service discipline and should be dealt with as a military offence. But this offence cannot be removed entirely from ultimate civil jurisdiction and therefore there are perhaps two solutions. The first is the present solution, under which autrefois acquit cannot be pleaded and therefore in consequence it is reasonable for a military trial to take steps, with the fact in the background that the civil law has not been flouted or that, at some stage, the civil law could impose its own will and try the offender. It probably would not do so but it could.
If we introduce autrefois acquit, the alternative means that military crimes which have a civil counterpart have to be reported to the civil authorities, who must say on each occasion whether or not they want to deal with the offence. This will be unsatisfactory. For example, if, in a matter of striking a superior officer, the civil authorities wished to deal with it as common assault, it would be highly unsatisfactory to both sides. That is an extreme example but one that we have to consider.
The present arrangements are as laid down by Queen's Regulations, paragraph 74. The general doctrine here is that, if a civil offence is committed, the decision as to whether it should be tried by a civil or a military court is made by the chief officer of police. The general principle is that offences which concern civilians or civilian property should be dealt with by the civil court and all other offences dealt with by the military court—that is, of course, with the exception of certain very serious offences which are


excluded, if committed in the United Kingdom, from being tried by a military court at all. These include such crimes as murder and manslaughter with which we need not concern ourselves here.
5.45 p.m.
Queen's Regulations neatly skate round the principle by dealing only with civil offences, that is, those charged under Section 70 of the Army Act, which is the offence of committing a civil offence. It rules that the commanding officer will proceed on whether the personal property of a civilian is concerned and that if it is he will report it to the civil police. The same applies to a driving accident. Clearly, there is no need to report any other offences, and this is, of course, a common custom in the Services. If there is a case of drunkenness or fraud or stealing in connection with Service property, such an offence is dealt with without reference, to the civilian police at all.
Half the offences listed in the Acts have corresponding civilian offences. One looks at them at random. Section 43 concerns drunkenness; Section 44 concerns stealing Service property, while Section 45 covers stealing from a person subject to military law. Clearly, these are also civil offences. Section 46 deals with making away with equipment; Section 49 deals with dangerous flying; Section 50 with the inaccurate certification of aircraft; Section 51 with low flying and Section 52 with causing annoyance by flying. I do not know whether the latter is a civil offence, but it should be.
In all these cases, military trial would be a subsequent bar to civil trial on the same facts. If I am right in my assumption, autrefois acquit as applied here would bar a civil trial for the offence of stealing from the public, which would be the offence of stealing on precisely the same facts. The forces must argue that they must have the right to try military offences, but I do not see that any military regulations can positively give them that authority. Equally, I cannot see how the Lord Chancellor could issue an omnibus fiat that any offence falling within a section other than section 70 must be tried by a military court. I do not see how he would have the power to do this. We must maintain the dominance of civil law where an act is both a military and a civil offence. Such a

case must first be offered to the civil power.
One can appreciate the difficulties with a serious offence. A Service fraud, for example, would clearly have been exhaustively investigated by the Service, but if a case of fraud is reported to the police, they will undoubtedly wish to investigate it very carefully themselves. That would be highly unsatisfactory, because it would be preferable for a Service fraud to be dealt with by the Service itself. With minor offences, such as a minor assault in barracks, or drunkenness, again the civil police would have to be informed, and they might well wish to investigate the whole case, and thereby do a great deal of damage to military discipline.
The present system causes no difficulty. It might be said that there could be difficulties with visiting forces, but we have had visiting forces in this country for a long time now and there have not been any great difficulties in this regard. That is not a sufficient ground for making this fundamental change in the relationship between military and civil law. The change is bound to obstruct the smooth running of military discipline, and I hope the Government will have second thoughts about it.

Mr. Percy Grieve: I do not share the apprehension of my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) about the effect of Clause 25. Having read it with some care, I feel that I must give it a welcome. In effect, it performs an act of justice for the Army and the Air Force of which the Navy for a long time, and possibly always, has enjoyed the benefit.
Section 129(1) of the Naval Discipline Act, 1957, which is set out on page 10 of the Special Report of the Select Committee, says:
Where a person subject to this Act is acquitted or convicted of an offence on trial by a court martial or on summary trial under section forty-nine of this Act, a civil court shall be debarred from trying him subsequently for the same offence…
The Army and Air Force did not enjoy that benefit and on the face of it it was clearly unfair that the soldier or airman should be in danger of being put in jeopardy twice for the same offence. In practice, it was highly unlikely to arise, and I have never known such a case in my experience, but clearly this apparent


injustice between the Services should be righted.
The word "substantially" in Clause 25(1) caused me some difficulty at first. The test of autrefois acquit or autrefois convict might be said to be that a man can say to the court before which he is appearing that he has been either convicted or acquitted of the offence for which he has been brought before that court, or that he could have been convicted or acquitted of the offence which was an element in the offence for which he was originally tried. I hope that I have put it clearly in lay terms.
The question which one automatically asks is whether the word "substantially" enshrines that rule and conveys it to those who have to interpret the Clause. I think that it does. The subsection says:
…a civil court shall be debarred from trying him subsequently for an offence substantially the same as that offence…
I think that in the circumstances "substantially" will be interpreted by the court in the sense in which the courts have interpreted the rule as between ordinary criminal courts of the land before.
I have only one reservation about this, and I put it by way of question, because I am not at all clear why subsection (2,c) puts a summary conviction by a commanding officer into a category different from that of conviction by court martial. Subsection (2,a) provides:
a person shall not be deemed to have been tried by a court-martial if confirmation is withheld of a finding by the court-martial that he is guilty of the offence…
That is obviously sound and logical. It would clearly be right for a person to be able to plead autrefois acquit or autrefois convict if the original finding had not been upheld on review.

Similarly, subsection (2,b) provides:
a person shall not be deemed to have had an offence taken into consideration by a court-martial in sentencing him if confirmation of the sentence is withheld or the sentence is quashed".
By the same reasoning, that is good sound sense. However, subsection (2,c) provides:
a case shall be deemed to have been dealt with summarily by the commanding officer or appropriate superior authority notwithstanding that the finding of that officer or authority has

been quashed, or the award of that officer or authority quashed or varied, on the review thereof".
There may be, I do not know, some good reasons for this distinction, but on the face of it I cannot see what they can be, and I would be grateful if the Government could explain why it is thought necessary to put a summary conviction by a commanding officer into a category different from that of a conviction by court-martial in the making of what on the whole is an improvement in the law.

The Attorney-General (Sir Elwyn Jones): The Committee has already been informed that Clause 25 applies the common law principle, that a person may not be put in jeopardy twice for the same offence, to the law of the Army and the Air Force. If the Clause is accepted, it will mean that a Service man already tried by a Service court will no longer be placed in jeopardy of similar criminal proceedings in the civil courts. As was pointed out by the hon. and learned Member for Solihull (Mr. Grieve), that principle already applies to the Navy and the Committee may well think that the time has come for parity of treatment for all three Services.
It may well be that the basis of the distinction is that the Navy has always been adored, but the Army has always been feared. I recollect a refrain which is attributed to King James I:
God and the Navy we adore
In times of danger, not before.
The danger passed, all is requited.
God is forgotten and the Navy slighted".
In this regard, the Navy for a long time has been given the ordinary protection of the principle of the common law that one cannot be tried or punished twice for the same offence. The Committee may think that justice is here being done, but, as the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) suggested, it is right that we should look carefully at this proposal.
I am satisfied and the Government are satisfied that it will not in fact in any way damage the good relations now existing between the civil and the Service authorities. In broad terms, the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead has indicated what the arrangements are, but it may be convenient if I briefly remind hon. Members how matters now work.


Commanding officers of all three Services are instructed by Queen's Regulations that the decision whether a Service man who is accused of an offence against the civil law should be tried by a Service authority or by a civil court is one for the chief officer of police in England and Wales, or the Procurator Fiscal in Scotland. Commanding officers are instructed to report to the police at the earliest possible moment allegations that Service men under their command have committed any of the offences of treason, murder, manslaughter, treason felony and rape, any assaults which might give rise to charges of murder, manslaughter and rape, and any case in which the property or person of a civilian is concerned, except where the civilian desires the case to be dealt with by the Service authorities.
6.0 p.m.
The position is quite clear, if the civil authorities desire to deal with the matter, in those circumstances they can. When the proposal which is incorporated in Clause 25 was discussed, I am told that the Home Office asked that Queen's Regulations for the Army and Air Force should contain a statement that in the case of offences against civil law appertaining to the use of public highways and road traffic, the decision whether to pursue the matter in a civil court or leave it to be dealt with by the military authorities should be one for the chief officer of police concerned.
That was agreed by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence, and the existing arrangements will ensure that prosecutions can be conducted by the civil authority and the police if they wish to do so. It has been pointed out that dangerous driving is a serious offence involving a risk to the public, and all cases concerning this charge should be brought before a civil court, even if the offence is committed on duty or in purported obedience to orders. I am satisfied, and I hope that the Committee will be, that this proposal, which is really directed to doing justice to the members of the Army and Air Force, is justified and will have no damaging consequences to the civil arm of the law.
May I add this reassuring qualification. The Clause does not affect the right of the citizens to bring civil proceedings against the Service man. That additional bulwark in our legal system has always

been an important safeguard of the rights of the individual. Indeed, financial compensation to the wronged party rather than punishment of the wrongdoer is often more acceptable to the wronged party. Without being too cynical about the matter, that is the situation which presently exists, and it is perhaps not a bad thing in many cases.
A question was asked about the use of the words,
…substantially the same as that offence.
and the hon. and learned Gentleman who raised the matter may be reassured when I tell him that the words are based on words used in another place in the case of Connelly v. The Director of Public Prosecutions to describe the common law principle of autrefois convict. We have taken the language from the decision of the House of Lords sitting judicially in that matter, and I think that it meets the needs of the situation.
I was asked about the apparent distinction between (2,a) and (2,c). The reason for that is that there is a difference between the withholding of confirmation and the process of quashing. The finding and sentence of a court-martial are not effective until they have been confirmed. Under normal principles, the court may be dissolved at any time before the trial is completed and a fresh court convened for the trial of the accused. If the finding of guilty of a court-martial is confirmed and is subsequently quashed, either by a reviewing authority or the Courts Martial Appeal Court, then a retrial is barred, just as it is if a finding of guilty by a C.O. or the appropriate superior authority is quashed, unless the Courts Martial Appeal Court or the Army or Air Force Board quashed the finding on the ground that fresh evidence was available.
That is the explanation of the difference between (2,a) and (2,c), and I hope that it provides an explanation satisfactory to the Committee. Accordingly I commend this Clause to the Committee.

Mr. Allason: The learned Attorney-General has told us what the present arrangement is regarding the reporting to the police of offences against the civil law, but he has not dealt with the important point of what is to happen in cases where a military charge lies but there is a parallel civil offence. In these


circumstances, have all of these offences to be reported to the civil law? They are not reported at the moment, and it seems that it would make appalling difficulties for military discipline if every offence which has a corresponding civil offence has to be reported, with all the consequent difficulties that I have described, of the police coming along and taking long statements from witnesses, purely in order to find out whether they are to take the matter into their hands.
There is also the fact that there is often a long delay before there is a decision in civil trials. A military trial is, I will not say nasty and brutal, but it is certainly swift. It is of the greatest importance to have quick trials, people should not be left waiting about because there is a possibility that the civil law will want to try the case.

The Attorney-General: As I understand it, the position is that most of the cases that we are considering will not affect civilians. If civilians are affected, the instructions to commanding officers are quite clear, and I have indicated them. They are that the offence should be reported to the police and a decision whether to proceed in respect of it is one for the chief of police to take. If the offence relates to military personnel only, in respect of their military duties, save for motoring offences to which I made special reference, then presumably the military authorities would proceed. I cannot imagine that the civilian power would have any grounds for complaint.
The position is perfectly clear. If civilians are affected then the duty of the Service authorities is to report the matter to the police authorities so that they can decide whether to proceed. In the ordinary event the proceedings would take place in a civil criminal court. With regard to the aspects of delay, and with respect to the hon. and learned Gentleman, I think that he has over-stated the case about the length of delay in bringing ordinary cases to trial. There has been great improvement in this in recent years and it is not a factor which need cause the Committee concern, although naturally the Lord Chancellor and the rest of us are very anxious to press on with speeding up the bringing of cases to trial. I am very reassured to hear from him

that courts martial procedure has apparently speeded up. It seems to have improved since the days when I was in the Army.

Mr. Allason: I was referring to summary trials, which are the essential feature of Army discipline. The vast majority of trials are summary trials, and it is very desirable that they should be dealt with speedily.
The Attorney-General said that there will be no requirement to report to the civil authorities cases which do not concern the person or property of civilians. This means that the whole concept that the civil law is superior to military law is given up and that in future military law will be on an equal footing with the civil law in cases where no person or property of a civilian is concerned. Therefore, in future, jungle justice will stand on equal terms with civil justice.

The Attorney-General: Save for the unhappy reference to jungle justice, which I must enthusiastically and immediately repudiate, the hon. Gentleman's summary is accurate. Even in the days when I was in the Army, I do not think that it was jungle justice.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 26 and 27 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 28.—(CONSTRUCTION OF REFERENCES TO HER MAJESTY'S FORCES, AND AMENDMENT OF DEFINITIONS OF "DESERTION" AND "ENEMY".)

Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Edwin Brooks: I speak with diffidence on this Bill, because I was not a member of the Select Committee which gave its provisions such careful consideration. However, my attention has been drawn to the redefinitions in Clause 28, and, in particular, to the new or expanded meaning suggested for the term "enemy". One always wonders what is the motive behind a redefinition—whether it is to refine the term or to create fresh obscurity and ambiguity, which perhaps will arise from the wording suggested in subsection (2).
The definition of "enemy" in the Army Act, 1955, was, I suppose, the


traditional one, the one which all of us would have no difficulty in accepting. Section 225 states:
'enemy' includes all persons engaged in armed operations against any of Her Majesty's forces, and also includes all armed mutineers, armed rebels, armed rioters and pirates.
This fairly comprehensive list does not appear to satisfy those who drafted this Clause, because we find added to it
persons so engaged against any forces co-operating with Her Majesty's Forces.
When we turn to the memorandum submitted to the Select Committee and which justifies this suggested alteration, we find the following explanation:
There are references in e.g. sections 24(1) of the Army and Air Force Acts (aiding the enemy) and 25 (giving intelligence to the enemy) which treat forces co-operating with Her Majesty's forces in the same way as Her Majesty's forces in the definition of 'enemy' in the 1955 Acts. It seems desirable to include a reference to forces co-operating with Her Majesty's forces in that definition. Subsection (3)"—
which is now subsection (2)—
therefore amends the definition so that it will read: 'Enemy' includes all persons engaged in armed operations against any of Her Majesty's forces, or any forces cooperating therewith, and also includes all armed mutineers, armed rebels, armed rioters and pirates".
It is obvious that the definition of "enemy" is important. A great deal of the disciplinary code hinges on it and it is therefore obvious that it should be as precisely worded as possible.
6.15 p.m.
It is hardly necessary to stress the seriousness of the definition. We find in the Air Force Act, 1955—and it equally applies to the Army Act of that year—that:
Any person subject to air-force law who with intent to assist the enemy…does any act calculated to imperil the success of operations of Her Majesty's forces, of any forces co-operating therewith or of any part of any of those forces…shall, on conviction by court-martial, be liable to suffer death or any other punishment provided by this Act".
In the Army and Air Force Act, 1961, the penalties for collaboration with the enemy are extremely serious. For example, offences specified
which, when committed by a person subject to military law with intent to assist the enemy, are punishable with death (or any other punishment provided by that Act) shall have effect with the substitution, for paragraph (d), thereof

(furnishing the enemy with arms or ammunition or with supplies of any description) of the following paragraph:
'(d), furnishes the enemy with arms or ammunition or with supplies of any description or with any other thing likely to assist him (whether similar to any of the things aforesaid or not)…
The penalties are the serious ones which I mentioned. It is therefore obvious that the definition of "enemy" is extremely important.
The justification given in the memorandum presented to the Select Committee is suspect. The point made is that there is already reference to co-operation with other forces, but I think that in the Acts of 1955 referred to it is clear that the context of this co-operation is defined by the previous meaning of enemy—that is, the meaning we have been content with hitherto. The Section which I have read states that:
Any person…who with intent to assist the enemy…does any act calculated to imperil the success of operations of Her Majesty's Forces, of any forces co-operating therewith".
In other words, the co-operation with other forces is in a situation where already the enemy has been defined—that is, the enemy with whom Her Majesty's forces are engaged in armed conflict. There is therefore no difficulty in defining the context of co-operation. However, the phrase used in the Bill is simply
persons engaged against any forces co-operating with Her Majesty's Forces".
I should like the Minister to explain what this co-operation extends to and what it means. If it means co-operation with Her Majesty's Forces in a situation in which they are already engaged in armed conflict with some other party, there is no reason to suggest any alteration in the existing definition because it covers such a situation. I can only assume, therefore, that in the new expanded definition circumstances are envisaged in which Her Majesty's Forces are not necessarily engaged in armed conflict but that there is some form of co-operation taking place with other forces who may be so engaged in armed conflict.
Perhaps I am misunderstanding the meaning, but I suggest that this is an interpretation which legitimately can be placed on the revised wording. When we consider that some of the treaty arrangements which this country has with allies envisage active, day-to-day military co-operation,


it is fairly obvious that we may be inadvertently opening the door to a redefinition of enemy which one day might be regrettable.
For example, in the South-East Asia Collective Defence Treaty, which is dated before the passing of the 1955 Army and Air Force Act, being dated 8th September, 1954, we find in Article II that
In order more effectively to achieve the objectives of this Treaty, the parties, separately and jointly, by means of continuous and effective self-help and mutual aid will maintain and develop their individual and collective capacity to resist armed attacks and to prevent and counter subversive activities directed from without against their territorial integrity and political stability.
I will not weary the Committee with further references to a Treaty the provisions of which are well known, but it is obvious that the type of co-operation envisaged in the S.E.A.T.O. organisation might well involve that degree of cooperation which is open to the meaning of the words which we are now discussing. It might be—this example is probably in many of our minds—that the forces of the United State Army in South Vietnam, which are clearly collaborating and cooperating with Her Majesty's Forces in large areas of policy, and also large geographical areas, are forces with which we are co-operating for the purposes of the Clause and, therefore, that the enemy against whom they are at present engaged is. ipso facto, our enemy.
This seems to open the door to a very unfortunate widening of a term which, up to now, has had a fairly clear and common sense meaning. I ask why, after ten years, it is now felt necessary to alter this meaning in such a way that it could genuinely introduce some most unfortunate implications.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: I want to make one point which, although not in explanation of the point raised by my hon. Friend, may nevertheless serve to affect the explanation that I want to give later. What happens with the various Statutes—the Army and Air Force Acts of 1955, 1957 and the Naval Discipline Act of 1961—is that constantly, as we discovered in the Select Committee, various parts of the Ministry of Defence are looking at the classes of Statute in order to effect a tidying-up. It is not a way of changing high policy, or anything of that kind. It

is a genuine attempt to deal with three Armed Forces, which have grown up in different directions, where it seems right to tidy up the law or where it is found on investigation that the provisions are not crystal clear.
This investigation will go on constantly and, as for example, under Clause 2, regulations will be made from time to time. In addition there will be the annual Resolution to maintain the constitutional proprieties with regard to this legislation. In five years' time we shall be doing exactly the same thing again. I have made this point to assure my hon. Friend that in the minds of Ministers responsible this subsection represents no vital change. This is a matter of tidying-up.
I want to refer to the explanatory document in the Special Report, because it is relevant to this point. There are references in Section 24(1) of the Army and Air Force Acts to the question of "aiding the enemy" and, in Section 25, to "giving intelligence to the enemy" which apply to the forces co-operating with Her Majesty's Forces in exactly the same way as Her Majesty's Forces. The purpose of the tidying up that is taking place which refers to forces co-operating with Her Majesty's Forces, is to make absolutely clear what is meant by "enemy ": there is no great move forward from the previous position. That is the way in which the Clause has arrived in the Bill, and, we hope, that that is how it will eventually appear on the Statute Book.
I take my hon. Friend's point that this may mean, inadvertently, something different. I want to take, first, his point about South Vietnam and the fact that the United States is engaged in war-like operations with the enemy. This fact does not affect the issue. There would have to be a firm decision—and this is not the place to go into that question—before we could become involved in the way in which the Clause suggests.
I now turn to the S.E.A.T.O. Treaty. My hon. Friend will understand that I have not had time to investigate this in great depth, and it would be necessary to do this to be absolutely firm, but at a first look at the question I am also advised that despite the obligations in the Treaty which my hon. Friend has read out it is not a question of drifting into the position he outlined. Despite


the Treaty it would still require something far more firm than that before anything arising out of the Treaty would land us in the trouble referred to by my hon. Friend.
I return to the point that there is no danger in my hon. Friend's suggestion it is genuinely a question of tidying up. It is implicit in the legislation of 1955, but if, at the end of the day, my hon. Friend still has doubts about this upon further investigation and cares to see me about it, I assure him that I shall look closely into the matter.

Clauses 29 to 38 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedules 1 to 6 agreed to.

Bill reported, without Amendment.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Brian O'Malley: I was the Chairman of the Select Committee which considered the Bill and I hope that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will listen with tolerance to my speech, as it may be difficult for me to keep strictly within the bounds of order. However, I do not want to detain the House for more than a minute or two.
First, as Chairman of the Committee, I should like to take this opportunity of thanking hon. Members from both sides of the House who served on it, in appreciation not only of the work done but also of the cordial atmosphere which was maintained throughout the sittings. Secondly, I hope that the House will feel that the work done in that Committee was useful. Indeed, when, a few moments ago, Clause after Clause went through without difficulty or discussion in the House, it struck me that perhaps one reason for that was that what was, in some ways, a specialist Committee of the House had cleared up a number of points in Committee which would otherwise have taken up the time of the House.
I believe that the Bill now is a better Bill for the consideration which it had in the Select Committee and as a result of the Amendments made during the proceedings of that Committee. In addition to the Amendments which the Select Committee made to the Bill, it also made a number of recommendations which I

should like briefly to place on record in the House.
It recommended that the Naval Discipline Act should be reviewed in future at the same time as the Army and Air Force Acts. It recommended that the Department of Defence, with the aim of standardisation, should consider, over the next five years, what practical advantages and disadvantages stem from the difference in status between the 1955 and the 1957 Acts. On a similar subject, it recommended that every Clause of the relevant Acts should be reviewed before the next Armed Forces Bill was drafted. On a more minor point, the question of fines, it recommended that, for both officers and other ranks, fines in all three Services should be expressed as a proportion rather than a fixed sum.
I should be glad if, when he replies, the Minister of Defence for the Royal Navy will make some comment on the attitude of the Department to those recommendations. On my behalf and on the behalf of the Select Committee as a whole, I hope that the Department of Defence will feel able to follow and implement the recommendations which the Committee made a few weeks ago.

6.34 p.m.

Mr. Humphrey Atkins: This Bill has had a somewhat longer and more chequered Parliamentary career than most. It received a Second Reading in December, 1965, and was passed by the House, but before a Select Committee could be set up, Parliament had been dissolved and the Bill had to be resurrected after the new Parliament had reassembled. It was nearly the same Bill, although one or two Amendments had been made. As the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. O'Malley) said, it went to a Select Committee, where it received very detailed scrutiny.
I would pay tribute to the Chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. Member himself. There is no doubt that the Chairman has an onerous task to perform, because he leads all the probing of the Committee into the reasons for and against any proposal and also has to keep order in the Committee. I fancy that he did not find the latter task difficult.
The Bill, now that it has finally reached this stage, is one of a long line of Bills, although it is the first to be called the


Armed Forces Bill. There is a desire on both sides of the House to bring the Services closer together, to weld them into one highly efficient defence force. This is bound to take a long time.
One of the many reasons for that is the intense pride of a Serviceman in his own Service. I do not know of a sailor who does not consider that a sailor is a wholly and infinitely superior being to a soldier and it is right that that should be so, if it applies, as it does vice versa. This pride and morale is to be encouraged and fostered, which is why it is bound to take a long time to weld the Services completely together. It is right that we should proceed slowly in this respect.
The Bill takes a further step in bringing the Services closer together. The conclusion in paragraph 20 of the Select Committee's Report was:
The Bill secures to the greatest extent that was possible, in the limited time since the working party was set up in the Ministry of Defence, a degree of harmonisation of Service law, while paying due regard to the differing circumstances and requirements of each Service.
It makes, of course, a number of detailed changes in Service law, two of which have been mentioned this afternoon.
One is the powers which are being granted to the Government under Clause 2 to make Regulations about terms of enlistment and conditions of service. We have discussed them and have agreed to give these powers to the Government, but it is only fair to say that whether these powers are successful or not depends entirely on how the Government use them. We shall watch this extremely closely and shall scrutinise the Regulations whenever we have the opportunity.
I would ask the Government to use the powers to make Regulations sparingly. I am not saying that they must not alter the Enlistment Regulations, and so on, as and when they think proper, but I think that too frequent an alteration in terms of enlistment and conditions of service would be unsettling to the Services. It would be bad for morale if the Services felt that the terms of enlistment were being changed every couple of weeks. This, obviously, will not happen, but one can imagine that if the terms were changed

too often, there would grow up in the Services a wide difference and a large number of differences in the terms under which Service men were serving.
If the terms remain fixed for a number of years, even those in the Service for 22 years will be on the same kind of footing as new recruits. However, if too many differences and too wide a difference grew up between terms of service, I cannot think that this would do any good to morale. I ask the Government to keep that in mind when they are altering these terms.
We entirely support the introduction of the new punishment by fines and hope that it will work in the Services and will be more efficient than the old system in punishing those who have to be punished.
Like its predecessors, the Bill has a limited life. It lasts for only five years and, therefore, at the end of that time, the House will be discussing its successor. Although I have no doubt that, when that time comes, hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite will be sitting on this side of the House, that will make no difference to the Armed Forces Bill of the day. We are at one in our desire to try to run the Services efficiently and humanely.
I would ask the Government not to lose the advantage of the intervening period of five years. They should properly use that period, first, to see what further steps they can take to bring Service laws closer together. I do not think that they will ever get them exactly the same for the three Services, but no doubt they can bring them closer together. Secondly, they should see what steps they can take to simplify the law. On Second Reading, one of my hon. Friends said that there were 116 Acts of Parliament governing life in the Services, and although, in the Select Committee, that figure was challenged—the number may, in fact, be a little smaller than was suggested—there is no doubt that there is a large number of Acts of Parliament governing the daily lives of sailors, soldiers and airmen. Anything the Government can do to consolidate these Measures must be an improvement.
We regard this as a useful Measure, and we wish it well.

6.42 p.m.

Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: I very much agree with the hon. Member for Merton and Morden (Mr. Humphrey Atkins) about the joint interest which all parties in the House have in the welfare of the Services. We have had a very good illustration of that in the work of the Select Committee. I also appreciate the dangers of too-frequent changes in the conditions of service. It is a matter of striking a balance. If things are obviously not working we want to change them. If they are working, we want to carry on with them as they are. We shall bear the point in mind. The hon. Member asked for simplification. It may be that the labours of simplification would be so vast as to make it hardly worthwhile. But we will bear that in mind, too.
It is appropriate that a Minister not on the Select Committee and who has not had much public dealings with the Bill should recommend it to the House, as I do. It gives me the opportunity of saying "Thank you" to my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. O'Malley) for his chairmanship of the Committee, to the Under-Secretary 'of State, who has borne the major Ministerial burden, and to all our Parliamentary colleagues who served on the Committee and those who gave evidence before it. They have done an arduous job with great thoroughness and have produced a most helpful Report. It is a genuine pleasure for me, on behalf of the Government, to say that the Government accept all the recommendations put forward to which the Chairman referred.
This is quite a substantial step forward, at any rate in bringing the laws of the three Services closer together. As such, it will be a substantial benefit to the Service. I recommend it to the House, and I hope that its further stages will be speedy.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Orders of the Day — BARBADOS INDEPENDENCE BILL

Considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment.

6.45 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. John Stonehouse): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I am very happy to participate in this debate as, unfortunately, I was unable to be here on Friday as I was on my way back from the Seychelles. The Barbados Conference, in June and July, in which I participated, agreed the main outline of the independence constitution and, as the House is aware, there will be a General Election in Barbados tomorrow which will decide which of the various political groups will provide the administration for an independent Barbados. It will be the desire of the House to say to the people of Barbados, what ever decision is reached tomorrow, that we wish them well in their independence.
I want to make it clear that, although when Barbados becomes independent it will not qualify for the usual Colonial Development and Welfare Act grants, it has been agreed that an amount equivalent to the unspent balance of the grants will be made available subject to not more than £150,000 being spent in the financial year 1967–68. It has also been agreed that the aid for the Barbados College of Arts and Science of £250,000 up to July, 1969, will also be made available. We are also willing to continue to provide Barbados with technical assistance under the various programmes that have been agreed. Therefore, although Barbados will become independent at the end of this month, we hope that these economic ties will continue.
I think that it has been generally shown by the good will revealed during the debate on the Bill that it is the desire of the whole House and of the country to wish Barbados well in its independence, which it justly deserves and which it will achieve at the end of this month.

6.47 p.m.

Mr. Richard Wood: There were moments when some of us were rather nervous whether the Under-Secretary of State would be able to participate in this debate. If he had not


been exceptionally quick on his feet he might not have been able to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I, too, was unable to be present at the debate on Friday, and I should like to join him in wishing the new nation of Barbados a future of stability, prosperity and expansion. Much to my regret, I have never been fortunate enough to visit Barbados, but I have met a number of people from that new nation, as it will be at the end of this month, and I have often been downcast as I have watched the superb brilliance of its cricketers in this country.
I join the Under-Secretary of State in wishing this new nation well and in expressing the hope, which was also expressed on Second Reading, that this new constitutional development, which will be completed at the end of this month, will be the forerunner of wider constitutional development in that part of the world. I therefore sincerely welcome the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Orders of the Day — GREENWICH HOSPITAL AND TRAVERS' FOUNDATION

6.50 p.m.

The Minister of Defence for the Royal Navy (Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu): I beg to move,
That the Statement of the Estimated Income and Expenditure of Greenwich Hospital and Travers' Foundation, for the year ending on 31st March, 1967, which was laid before this House on 23rd May, be approved.
Normally, the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy would be asking approval for the Estimates of Greenwich Hospital, which I now do. The reason I am doing it is that my noble Friend is in the House of Lords and is not able to do that duty at this Dispatch Box. The fact that the job falls to me, however, is in no sense a burden, because everyone I know of who has at any time been connected with the Greenwich Foundation has become devoted to it.
That is certainly true of my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling and Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Malcolm MacPher-son) and the hon. Member for Merton and Morden (Mr. Humphrey Atkins), who represent this House on the committee. It was especially true of my very old friend Sir John Maitland, who served on the management committee of the Royal Hospital School at Holbrook for 20 years. Although we had very different political outlooks during that time, we never had any disagreements about the merits of the Foundation, or the way that the school which it serves should work. Unfortunately, I have never had a chance until now to say a public "Thank you" to Sir John for his service, but I assure him that the management committee, the whole school and, indeed, the House are extremely grateful to him for his service.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Mallalieu: In the corresponding debate last year, I gave an extensive review of the school. I dealt with the changes in the entry selection, with the development of the opportunities which the school was offering and with its growing achievements. There is no need this year to go over all that ground again. There is, however, need to repeat that the achievements of the school are very much dependent upon money.


As the House will know, we have had to increase fees several times, but the increased costs of the school have been more than double the sum derived from the increase in fees. It is, therefore, urgent, and it has been for some time, that we should take steps to increase our revenue.
It will be seen from page 2 of the Estimates that there is an increase of £28,550 in the income of the hospital. The bulk of this comes from two sources—the revenue from other property, nearly £18,000, and receipts from the Royal Hospital School of £10,000. Much of the increase in the rent from property comes from increases in office and shop rents, and it will be seen that about one-third of the extra income which comes from the other property is to be transferred to capital account. This change in the method of accounting is being introduced after discussion with the Comptroller and Auditor General.
Hon. Members will realise that office leasehold properties, in which the hospital is investing, are wasting assets, so that it would be wrong to take to income the whole of the moneys received annually from them. The purpose of this type of investment for the hospital is to secure not so much an appreciation of income, but an appreciation of the capital expended and not just its replacement in due course. Thus, on page 3 of the Estimates it will be seen that we intend to take to capital over £6,000 at the end of the year. That is to say, we do not plan to spend the whole of the increased revenue from other property.
The £10,000 increase in income in respect of the Royal Hospital School is the estimated effect of raising fees from £100 to £120 per annum. I hasten to add, for the benefit of any hon. Members who come fresh to this debate, that many parents or guardians are able to get contributions towards these fees from local education authorities, and serving naval personnel are, of course, eligible for grants from Navy Votes towards the cost of educating their children. If parents cannot afford the fees or get assistance from other sources, they are remitted either wholly or in part according to the circumstances of each case. The pledge given by my predecessors that the introduction of fees should not be allowed to cause hardship is being honoured.

The resulting total gross income for 1966–67 is estimated at £493,000, compared with £464,000 for 1965–66. After gross expenditure of £308,500 on the Royal Hospital School, £94,000 on pensions and allowances, and £88,500 on estate maintenance and administration, and after making modest provision for future contingencies, we are left with a balance of £2,000.
Obviously, that is not a large balance and our long-term forecast shows that even this modest surplus cannot be expected to last for long. On the best estimate we can make, the amount will move from surplus to deficit in about three years' time. Therefore, if we are to maintatin, let alone improve, the work of the hospital, it is essential to find ways of improving our income.
In these matters the hospital is fortunate in having the advice of a panel who freely give their time to our affairs. On their advice, during the current year the hospital has moved quite a large proportion of its capital into further commercial properties. I confidently predict that, with their help, we shall find next year that we have secured a further improvement of income.
To show how necessary this is, I would draw to the attention of hon. Members that we have had to find the means this year to pay for an increase of nearly £22,000 in the cost of the Royal Hospital School. This, as the hon. Member for Merton and Morden will understand, is mainly a reflection of the teachers' salary settlement last year, together with nationally negotiated wage increases. This increase in cost of the school is more than double the amount provided by the increased fees. The balance is found partly from the improved revenue from other property that I have mentioned and partly because some Greenwich Hospital pensions are expected to cost us rather less this year. What is provided for pensions and for educational grants is, on the experience of the last few years, very unlikely to prove inadequate.
On the other hand, we have made no provision for another new charge which is coming in this year, and that is the Selective Employment Tax. When this tax was first mooted, I was horrified to find that we did not qualify as a charity for exemption and it looked as though we


would be caught for about £12,000. Luckily, however, we have followed the technique of Lord Butler, who managed to get his dog into Trinity disguised as a cat. Somehow, we have got round it; an Amendment has been put down and we are not caught for the full force of S.E.T. But we still have to find £3,000, which will eventually be refunded—an interest-free loan to the Government. We are able to do that by postponing a number of works that we had in mind.
That is a very brief summary of the Estimates that I lay before the House. I shall listen with great interest to the points which hon. Members always make on them and I will try to deal with them later.

6.59 p.m.

Mr. Humphrey Atkins: I start by advancing what is, coming from me, a rather unusual proposition, because only two or three hours ago I was saying that the Government must give Parliament as much control as possible over, in that case, the Armed Forces, and arguing against the Government's attempt to remove some of that Parliamentary control.
I now have to say exactly the opposite. I am not sure that we are right, in 1966, to consume hours in this Chamber debating the affairs of the Greenwich Hospital. I say that with all respect to the hospital, for which I have the highest possible admiration. I enjoy these debates, as we all do. They give us an opportunity to talk of something we all know and like, and to make congratulatory and exploratory speeches.
We have these debates because the Greenwich Hospital Act, 1883——

Commander Harry Pursey: 1865.

Mr. Atkins: I think that the hon. and gallant Member will find that the debate in Parliament stems from the Act of 1883, because in the early 1880s, which was before my time, and possibly even before his, something happened in the affairs of the hospital which it was felt could be avoided by having an annual debate in Parliament.

Commander Pursey: We must get the facts right. There was the 1865 Act, but

if the hon. Member will go through the records of the House he will find that for many years before that—150 or 200 years ago, when Greenwich Hospital first started—debates took place in this House. It is not a question of the debates starting in the year he has mentioned, but long before.

Mr. Atkins: I am perfectly happy—if the hon. and gallant Member wants to have it as 1865, by all means let him have it——

Commander Pursey: 1700.

Mr. Atkins: Be that as it may, we have these annual debates by Act of Parliament. That may have been all right in 1883—as I think—or in 1700—as the hon. and gallant Member thinks—but Parliament had a good deal less to do then than it has now. In fact, I would still think it right to have these debates if Parliament had little to do today, but I do not think it right in today's circumstances.
Let me give an example. The Minister spoke of the effect of the Selective Employment Tax on the finances of the hospital. By happy chance, the Chancellor of the Exchequer accepted an Amendment put down by the hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Malcolm MacPherson) and myself—the only Amendment, I think, that had the support of both sides—which, as the Minister says, helps the hospital in this respect. There was no time to discuss the Amendment, because when the Government brought in the Selective Employment Tax so rushed were they that they had to apply the Guillotine, and so deprive the House of an opportunity to discuss this Amendment and very many other Amendments.
That meant that we had to persuade the Government privately, by the back door, that it was a good thing to accept it when we should have been able to persuade them on the Floor of the House. Having in mind that and many other examples that I could cite, I cannot help wondering whether we should not do better discussing other matters on the Floor of the House, such as, for example, the Selective Employment Tax.
I am sorry that the Leader of the House is not present, because I know that he is eager to reform some of our procedures.


I suggest—and I hope that he will take note of what I say even though he is not here—that this might be one of them. It could be done in a variety of ways. We could discuss the hospital at some other time, or in some other part of the building, or we could so amend what I speak of as the 1883 Act as to make the debate permissive rather than mandatory. Alternatively, we could provide for a debate every five years instead of each year. Some reform is necessary.
I want to pay a tribute now to the Minister of Defence for the Royal Navy for his long association with Greenwich Hospital and its affairs. I am delighted that he is present this evening to introduce these Estimates and to take charge of the debate. The hon. Gentleman served on the committee of management of the school for many years, he was chairman of it for a short time, and I am delighted that, at any rate in this Chamber, he is still in charge.
I echo what he said about our former colleague, Sir John Maitland, who served (he school for a great many years. It is only because he has retired that I now have the privilege of serving on the committee of management of the school. That is a great privilege, and I hope very much to be able to contribute something to the welfare of the school.
Before discussing the affairs of the school—which generally occupies most of our time in these debates—there are one or two matters that I would like the Minister to deal with later. He said that revenue from property is going up and is now contributing about two-thirds of the increased revenue of the school. He made some reference to the management of the property, but the accounts are not very specific on this subject. May I take it from him that the increased revenue does not result from the fund's acquiring a great deal more property but that the property already owned is being relet at more favourable terms; in other words, that the existing property is being so managed that the income from it has gone up? School receipts are also up, and I shall refer to that item later.
In page 4, under the heading "Property in Greenwich", there is an item of rent of buildings let to the Royal Naval College. The estimated income there is £18,950, as it was last year. One of the disadvantages of this debate is

that we can only compare an estimate with an estimate and not with last year's expenditure, but I know that that cannot be helped. The latest figures of actual receipts and expenditure that I can lay hands on are those for the year ended 31st March, 1965.
I find that a curious thing happened in the year 1964–65. The estimated rent of the buildings let—in the accounts the word is "lent", but that is no doubt a printer's error—to the Royal Naval College is the same as we now have before us, but the actual amount received was £23,756. Was that just a bad estimate, or what? And can we look for such an increased figure this year?
While on the subject of the property let to the Royal Naval College, can we be told how that rent is established? Can we look for an increase in it? We know the buildings well—they are very fine and magnificent—and I wonder whether they are not worth more than an estimated £18,950, a figure that seems to have been established for some time.
I suggest that the hon. Gentleman should clap his Greenwich Hospital hat on his head and ask the Minister of Defence for the Royal Navy for a little more rent for these buildings. If he does not have any success with that conversation with himself, perhaps he could apply to the Secretary of State for Defence, who signs the accounts, for a little more for the college. The sum may be a fixed amount, but I hope that it is not fixed for too long. There is no doubt that rents generally rise, and he himself has said that the hospital needs as much money as it can get.
In page 6 of the Estimates for 1966–67 we are given the estimated cost of maintaining a boy for a year at the Royal Hospital School. In common with so many other costs, this has been steadily rising over a period and is shown for 1966–67 as £436—almost twice the maximum fee chargeable. Have comparisons been made with other boarding and fee-paying schools? If so, how does the Royal Hospital School show up in that respect?
I repeat what has been said in many of these debates, that Greenwich Hospital is extremely fortunate in its headmaster, Mr. York, and his staff for the way in


which they run the school and the excellent results they achieve, not just in examinations but in turning out boys. Virtually everyone will agree that this is a first-class school. The headmaster does a magnificent job, but he has certain difficulties with which to contend which other headmasters do not have. There is the vexed question, which comes up every year in these debates, of entry. Entry to the school is not just a straightforward matter, but has to take account of the charter of the school and of directions by the Ministry of Defence.
I understand that applicants are graded in order of priority according to their family circumstances from what I might call the top priority group—orphan children of seamen—through other groups, seamens' children who have only one parent alive, and children of seamen with long service or short service, until we come to the lowest group—the only group where there is a definite limit fixed on the number who may be admitted—children of officers. It was fixed some years ago and stipulates that no more than 10 per cent. of the children entered should be sons of officers.
The House may be interested to know how this is working out. This 10 per cent. figure, I think, was an inspired guess, an estimate of approximately the right number. I hope we can be told what the position is regarding the number of applicants and the number admitted. Reading last year's debate, I saw that my predecessor on the management committee said that there were four applicants for every vacancy. I do not know if this is the position today; perhaps the Minister will tell us. How does that relate to the entry of sons of officers? If in other cases there are four applicants for every vacancy but in the case of sons of officers, say, only one and a half for every vacancy, it would appear that the number of sons of officers allowed in the school is too great. I should like to know the figures so that we can see if this is good estimate.
Following from that, one of the most difficult problems which the headmaster faces is that of deciding and keeping to a particular standard of education. It was decided some time ago that the school should have two grammar streams and should become a truly comprehensive boarding school. It seems that it must

be the business of the headmaster who controls these entry problems to ensure as far as he can that the grammar streams are reasonably full. Otherwise, there might be a position where a very bright orphan is out on a limb without any other bright child working beside him, keeping him company and inspiring him. I think I am right in saying that the present head of the school is an orphan and there are many like him, but it is no good having boys who are admitted not only because they have brains but because they are orphans and who then find themselves out on a limb.
I think it follows with this complicated system of entry qualification, not just an educational qualification but a parental background qualification, that at some stage boys in what I call the middle category of priority must be selected for ability rather than for family circumstances. If boys were selected solely on the basis of family circumstances, the headmaster might find himself with a nearly empty grammar stream yet not be allowed to disregard entirely the family circumstances of a boy because this is laid down by the Ministry of Defence. In this respect he has a most unenviable job because, whatever he does, there will always be criticism because one boy got in and another did not. That will be put down to all manner of reasons, most of which will be wrong. I have no reason to suppose that the headmaster does his job other than most conscientiously, fairly and well.

Commander Pursey: We should get this right. Otherwise, perhaps quite innocently because of lack of knowledge, the hon. Member will be misleading the House and the public and this will be on record in HANSARD. I ask, is it a fact that the headmaster does not select the entries? The applications are handled by Greenwich Hospital, which does the sorting out, and then by the board of governors. It may well be that in addition a selection committee decides on the entries. From my knowledge of the school—the Minister can correct me if I am wrong—the headmaster does not decide the entries and he has not the responsibility and the invidious position which the hon. Member has stated he has.

Mr. Atkins: I think I am right in saying from my knowledge of the school—which, I suggest, is slightly more recent


than that of the hon. and gallant Member—the headmaster, the board and director of Greenwich Hospital work very closely in these matters, but it cannot be denied that a great responsibility rests on the headmaster to cope with these rather unusual problems, plus the necessity to run a truly comprehensive boarding school with two grammar streams in it. I think he has a very difficult and unenviable job and that he does it extremely well.
I turn to two financial matters affecting the school. I must immediately speak about the entirely ludicrous effect of the Selective Employment Tax upon Greenwich Hospital. The Under-Secretary said that the Government accepted an Amendment to the Selective Employment Payments Bill. I am delighted that they saw sense in this respect. I wish that they had seen more sense and accepted many more Amendments. But even so Greenwich Hospital has to make a permanent interest-free loan of £3,000 to the Government. That must come out of the school, for it cannot come from anywhere else unless we are prepared to say—as no one is—that the pensions receivable by people from the funds should be reduced.
As the Minister said, it can come only by deferring some important and necessary capital project. He rather gave the House to believe that this would be quite simple because the loan would be paid back and, secondly, it only meant not buying a particular machine for another year. Surely that is far from the case. I know of no provisions for paying back this permanent loan of £3,000. It will go on as long as the Selective Employment Tax goes on. That may not be very long, but I do not think we can count on it ending soon. Secondly, it cannot be said that the matter can be dealt with by deferring the purchase of a machine next year because in the following year it would have to be deferred for another year. That would mean deferring purchasing the machine, and no doubt deferring the purchase of another machine in another year, and so on. Really, what good this does to the school or the country, I cannot understand. I only hope to goodness the Government have no more half-baked ideas like this, because they do not do anybody any good.

The second point I wish to make in connection with the financial matters of the school relates to fees. These were introduced some years ago, and, as the hon. Gentleman said, they now stand at a level of £120 as from the beginning of this year. It is true that in most cases the fees come either from public funds—that is to say, from naval educational allowances—or from local education authority grants or similar sources, or they come from the funds of the hospital itself. The hon. Gentleman mentioned that where parents of boys simply cannot afford to pay the fees and do not have available those public sources which he mentioned, the hospital will remit them either in part or entirely.
It will be interesting for the House to know, if the hon. Gentleman can tell us later in the debate, just how many parents of the 683 boys—I think I am right in that figure—now in the school are paying the full fees out of their own pockets. I do not believe the figure is very high, but we do not have it in the accounts and I think that it would help us better to comprehend the whole picture of the school if we knew this.
I now have a proposition which I earnestly hope the hon. Gentleman will consider favourably. It is in connection with fees. My proposition stems from the fact that the naval educational allowance available to parents who wish to send their children to boarding school still runs at the level of £210 a year for the first child and rises for subsequent children to, I think, £255 for the second and £310 for the third. Those figures may have altered, but I do not think they have. We are charging at the school £120. The Navy provide for a grant of up to £210. Since this money is available, would the hon. Gentleman consider the proposition that at the Royal Hospital School differential fees should be charged?
This is in no way a new idea, because a great many fee-paying schools throughout the country have arrangements for the parents of certain categories of children to pay reduced fees. For example, the school where I was educated has exactly that arrangement. Every parent paid a certain fee, but the mother of children whose fathers had been killed on active service paid a much lesser fee—in other words, a differential fee.


I wonder whether this type of arrangement could not be introduced into the Royal Hospital School to take advantage of the fact that the Service is prepared to provide for the education of the children of its employees more than we are charging them.
If we could do this, it seems to me that one could increase the income of Greenwich Hospital at no cost to Greenwich Hospital and, therefore, Greenwich Hospital's own funds for helping people who are in real need would be greater, and all of us surely want to help people in real need as much as possible.
I do not expect the hon. Gentleman to give me the answer to this tonight, but I would like him to examine this very carefully to see whether he could charge a differential fee depending on whether or not a boy's father were alive. It would have to be carefully worked out. Would the hon. Gentleman undertake to examine it, because it would be of great advantage to the boys in the school?
For over 250 years the school has made a valuable contribution to our national life in providing education for the sons of seamen. I believe, indeed, it provides as good an education as can be found in the country. In so far as we in this House can help those concerned with the school to improve it still further, I am quite certain that all of us will do so, and we wish them well.

7.26 p.m.

Commander Harry Pursey: These annual Estimates of this two-centuries-old wealthy—I underline the word "wealthy", in view of the remarks of the hon. Member for Merton and Morden (Mr. Humphrey Atkins)—nautical charity—not naval charity—Greenwich Hospital, have provided—[Interruption.] May I have the hon. Gentleman's attention, because I am following him and I want to take up points which he made and correct him where he was wrong. He may correct me, also, but he will have a long way to go to do that These annual Estimates of this two-centuries-old, wealthy—I repeat the word "wealthy "—nautical—not naval, because it is for all old seafarers—charity, Greenwich Hospital, have provided the House of Commons for over 100 years with an opportunity of inquiring

into the use or misuse of its large funds, and on various occasions a Select Committee investigated wrong doings of the institution. Since the war, but for my concern, few, if any, hon. Members would have been interested in the subject and the Estimates would regularly have gone through "on the nod," as has happened in some years.
My first duty, as the senior member of the Greenwich Hospital lobby, is to welcome the hon. Member for Merton and Morden to our debate and as a member of the board of governors of the Royal Hospital, and to express the hope that he will be seized of the importance of the case of ratings' widows and orphans.

Mr. Humphrey Atkins: Would the hon. and gallant Gentleman give way?

Commander Pursey: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to finish the sentence, I will gladly give way. I was expressing the hope that the hon. Gentleman would be seized of the importance of the case of ratings' widows and orphans for much better consideration by Greenwich Hospital.

Mr. Humphrey Atkins: I am grateful to the hon. and gallant Gentleman for welcoming me to the management committee of the school. In welcoming me to these debates he is perhaps on slightly less safe ground. I have attended these debates every year since I have been in the House. I have spoken on many of them, and I am well acquainted with the hon. and gallant Gentleman's speech.

Commander Pursey: I thought that I was keeping this friendly. I do not know why the hon. Gentleman wishes to crab my welcome. If he counts the number of speeches he has made, he will be able to count them on one hand; so let us not dispute that any further.
My second duty is to apologise for the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling). He was in the House earlier today, but has had to fly to Bonn. I hope to deal with some of his points as well as those of the hon. Member opposite, which I propose to do forthwith.
I am very pleased that the hon. Gentleman made the speech which he did today, because it indicates exactly and precisely what I have said for years, which is that the object is to transfer the Navy's


orphanage for seamen ratings into an officers' fee-paying school. Let me take the first major point, about not using the time of the House for debates of this nature. This is quite a fair point to make. On the other hand, it is quite a fair point to argue against, and I sum it up as being absolute nonsense.
There is any amount of time lost in the House, particularly on Friday afternoons. We have the House rising at 12 noon, or 1 p.m. or 2 p.m., when this matter could be debated. It is no good trying to imply that this matter is not important, because Greenwich Hospital is a charity for the whole of serving naval ratings, the whole of ex-Service ratings, their wives, widows and children. But the same thing also applies to the whole of the Merchant Navy. It also applies to all seafarers, pilots, lifeboatmen and everyone else.
There are very few subjects dealt with in this House which cover such a vast area of people, and are of importance to this country, by virtue of the Merchant Navy, which carries our goods from port to port, and the Royal Navy, which is responsible for them all over the world in peace and in war.
I submit that the object is not to save the time of the House. The object is that there are more and more Members here, and ex-naval Members particularly on the other side of the House, who wish to avoid the scandal of this charity being ventilated, so that there will be a process of a loss of places for poor ratings' sons in order that rich officers with £3,000 a year can get their sons into this school without paying a penny from their pockets, when ratings' widows on £4 a week must go out to work and pay someone to look after their children and then have to pay fees out of their own pockets. That is the hon. Member's object.
Now I will go on and make my speech proper and take up some of these points in detail. The main subject of the debate has usually been the Royal Hospital School, which has been the Navy's orphanage for 250 years. I was educated at the old school at Greenwich 60 years ago, and spent 30 years in the Navy. Therefore, I have considerably more knowledge and experience than the hon. Member for Merton and Morden and the Minister of the history and development of the school. Moreover, my grandfather,

who fought in the Crimean War, was also taken care of by Greenwich Hospital.
My maiden speech was made on these Estimates 21 years ago. I was active in the cause of ratings' widows and orphans before the Minister knew anything about the school, or even where it was. I also took part in debates in the House when he was absent, even after he became a governor, which he was three years ago, and on other occasions.
I therefore suggest that the Minister should stop his personal attacks on me in these debates, particularly after the debate in the Parliamentary Labour Party this morning. For example, last year he said:
I am afraid he does not listen to what is said…I might just as well not have said anything."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th October, 1965; Vol. 718, c. 571–2.]
I will not comment on that now. On a previous occasion he said of me that it requires
a diamond drill to get anything into
my
head."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th July, 1963; Vol. 680, c. 1587.]
I am sending that to the Chief Whip. It is not my head which requires a diamond drill, but his. And he can send that to the Chief Whip.
What is wanted is for the Minister to answer the arguments, not sidetrack them. He has never refuted any of my quotations from official documents and figures provided by the Admiralty. What he has tried to do is to ridicule my arguments, even though they are based on facts, and ridicule my old school, which achieved as good final results as the new one.
I assure the Minister that I will not be intimidated by him and I give him this advice gratis. Do not try to teach your grandmother to suck eggs. And you can send that to the Chief Whip.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. and gallant Gentleman means, "He can send that…". I do not send it.

Commander Pursey: I beg your pardon. Sir.
Now we get on to the record. The capital assets of Greenwich Hospital as shown in these Estimates are over £4 million—no mean sum. The annual income


is about £½ million. Yet the hon. Member for Merton and Morden spoke of a shortage of money. Wait till I find some more.
The main objects of the charity are a limited number of pensions for retired officers and ratings and widows, and the Royal Hospital School now at Holbrook, Suffolk. The hon. Member presented a nonsensical argument about retaining these special Greenwich Hospital pensions and he talked about people in real need. Today, there are comparatively lavish naval pensions for service and for widows on the loss of their husbands and for their children.
In the same way, if the widow and orphan do not qualify, they are eligible for higher pensions from the Ministry of Social Security. There is no question at all but that with these pensions and social security there is no justification for these Greenwich Hospital pensions.
I have to put in one exclusion. There are funds which, in particular, come from Canada and which were provided for a special purpose. I would not argue that where funds have been provided for a special purpose they should necessarily be used for any other purpose. My submission today is that, if there is any question of shortage of money in Greenwich Hospital, it should not come from the school or any other place. It can be taken by letting these pensions gradually die out as the present holders die.
The scandal about this orphanage today is that what should be a free school for the sons of ratings, in particular for orphans, has been changed into a fee-paying school with one-third of the places for officers' sons, at the expense of ratings sons and especially at the expense of ratings' orphans. What is the result? At present, there is the incredible position of "brass hats" with pay of £3,000 per annum and above having their sons educated at no expense to themselves, while the widows of rating with pensions of £4 a week have to pay for their orphan sons to be educated at a school which was not only specially founded, but was over the years endowed with hundreds of thousands of pounds for just such orphans.
Moreover, the Admiralty—because the Admiralty is responsible—and Greenwich Hospital charge fees to ratings' widows with several young children, even when

such women are forced to go out to work because of their low income and pay another woman to look after the children. What an Admiralty! What an orphanage! What a Greenwich Hospital! What a scandal!
Will the Minister answer these simple questions? First, has an admiral's son been educated at this ratings' orphanage instead of a rating's orphan? Secondly, have captains' sons been educated there instead of orphans of Merchant Navy seamen? Thirdly, has he been responsible for charging a petty officer's widow the full amount of her Naval widow's pension for the education of her orphan son so that, in fact, she lost her pension? Fourthly, has he been responsible for charging a rating's widow with six children of school age fees at this orphanage when serving officers, and serving ratings, for that matter, paid no fees at all?
The previous Tory Front Bench spokesman on this matter, the hon. and learned Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell), interrupted me last year to remark:
If what the hon. and gallant Gentleman is saying were exactly true it would, of course, be shocking, but is it not the case that the sort of widow he has mentioned would apply to the local education authority for a grant for the education of her child, and would almost certainly be given it—and that if she were not the Foundation itself would pay whatever proportion of the fees, or all the fees, was necessary, according to the financial circumstances of the widow? "—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 29th October, 1965; Vol. 718, c. 536.]
Of course, that is the sort of picture that we get from the other side. It is completely false, as I shall show. This is just what one would expect to happen with this wealthy charity, but it does not. Ratings' widows in several cases are refused a local education authority grant, particularly in Scotland, and Greenwich Hospital also refuses to pay all the balance of fees necessary. The Shylock responsible for demanding the pound of flesh from these poor seamen's widows for the education of their orphan sons is the Minister. There he sits on the Front Bench, quite unperturbed about this grave failure to make proper use of this ancient, wealthy, nautical charity.
Last year the Minister took considerable pains to try to prove—without success—that the school was never considered to be an orphanage. Why he should wish to do this is never clear.


Certainly, for some years after the war, hon. Members on both sides of the House discussed it as an orphanage, and it is only since it became a "posh" fee-paying school for officers' sons that the Admiralty has wished to disown it as the Navy's orphanage for ratings' sons, and apparently that is what the hon. Member for Merton and Morden wishes to do.
The position is crystal clear from the original charter, a plaque on the old school at Greenwich, and the regulations of the new school at Holbrook until as recently as 1949, that is, for over 200 years and until only 17 years ago. The original, charter of 1694 said that one object of the Greenwich Hospital was
…the maintenance and education of the children of seamen happening to be slain or disabled in such sea service…
That applied to both the Merchant Navy and the Royal Navy.
The Minister argued last year:
Specifically, the charter refers to the children of seamen who are disabled and not to orphans".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th October, 1965; Vol. 718, c. 520.]
Cannot the Minister read, or has he bifocal glasses that do not get in complete sentences? In the law courts this would be referred to as an attempt to falsify the facts. The charter specifically refers first—and I again quote—to
…the children of seamen happening to be slain…
What are they but orphans? Orphans have had the first claim throughout and even the Minister contends that it is still so today. He cannot have the argument both ways.
Furthermore, as recently as five years ago a plaque was unveiled at the old school at Greenwich as part of the 250th anniversary celebrations of its foundation. An Admiralty Press statement gave the inscription on the plaque:
Royal Hospital School.
The buildings now forming the East and West wings of this National Maritime Museum were begun in 1807 to accommodate the Naval Orphanage founded in 1798. The Greenwich Hospital School established in 1712 for the sons of seamen was joined to this in 1821 to form the Royal Hospital School which remained there until 1933, when it was moved to its present home at Holbrook in Suffolk.
Does the Minister now accept the statement in the Admiralty document and the plaque that the school was an orphanage?

He says nothing, and silence gives consent.

Mr. Ronald Bell: What is to happen if, fortunately, there are not many children whose parents happen to be slain in naval service because, fortunately, there are no wars? Is the school to remain empty?

Commander Pursey: That is a very clever debating point. It is so clever as to be completely ignored. I know better than anyone else that last year the hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned that if these boys could not get there they would not be in the old orphanages. The position today is that they are in the poorer orphanages, and it is not only a question of fathers killed in battle. The school was still getting a large number of orphans right up to the time the old school left Greenwich, and there is still a considerable number of orphans. I do not argue that all these places should be restricted to orphans but that the orphans should have first consideration, because that was the object for the school's institution and for the funds that have been paid since.
The regulations are the one factor the Minister cannot twist to suit his argument or brush under the carpet. For over a century at the old school and for 16 or more years at Holbrook there were seven classes of entry—this may interest the hon. Member for Merton and Morden. The first four were the various categories of orphans, namely: (1) both parents dead; (2) father killed on duty; (3) father died, mother living; (4) mother died, father living. What further proof would be required for a court to rule that the School was primarily intended to be, and still is, an orphanage? Does the Minister accept that these were the school regulations until 1949 and later, in other words until after he was on the board of governors? Again, no answer, so we must accept that the Minister now agrees that the school was primarily intended to be, and still is, a nautical orphanage.
The hon. Member for Merton and Morden made a point about difficulty of selection. There has never been any difficulty in selecting the boys for entry into an orphanage. The intention was that the orphanage should provide education for entry on the lower deck, although I do not say that a good boy should not be able to get in on the quarter deck. But


the problem arises only when one starts to turn it into a posh fee-paying school, and one wants to select the boys by virtue of ability, when in point of fact it was founded, and the money has been contributed in large sums, for disability of the parent. There is no difficulty about it at all.
The school at Greenwich provided free education and maintenance for 1,000 boys. The new school at Holbrook was planned for an increase of 120 to 1,120, but although there was a free 850-acre site and the school cost over £1 million to build, it has never been completed, because two of the hostels planned have never been built.
The hon. Gentleman says that the school is short of money. The trouble is that it has always been "lousy" with money and has spent it on the wrong things. A large sum of money was spent on a vast church and a vast organ. The organ is as big as the ones in Odeon cinemas, and the only person who can play the thing properly is the organist of Westminster Abbey. The consequence is that on Sunday, when the ordinary schoolmaster goes up to play it, he switches off all the instruments on the dashboard and plays it as a harmonium. This is where the money has gone. There is the largest swimming pool in the country at Holbrook. The place has got the largest overheads imaginable. Of course it has; it was built for 1,120 and has only half that number.
The place had not been in existence for more than a few years when the organisation was changed from a company system with petty officers to a master system, and then the new buildings had to be rebuilt to suit the new system. That is where more of the money went. If anyone wants to check that, there is the Report of the Select Committee of the House which investigated it.
Holbrook is claimed to be a good school. So it ought to be at that extravagant price. I have never said that it is not, and I have never criticised the staff or the education. Nor have I argued, as the Minister and others have claimed, that the curriculum up to 1949 should have been continued. I am in favour of improved education, but for the right class of boy, for the sons of poor seamen and widows, for the boys for whom it was

intended and for whom it was run for two centuries.
My main argument is that the boys for whom the school was founded, namely, the sons of poor ratings, and particularly orphans, are being kept out by the Admiralty in order to enter more sons of comparatively wealthy officers and to obtain the full fees from the naval education funds.
The decision to enter commissioned officers' sons, cadet entry as well as lower deck entry, was made as recently as 1949. The reason given was shortage of candidates, but this arose because the Admiralty failed to make the school known and to ensure that applications came for ratings' sons. Today, as has been said, three out of every four candidates are rejected, so that more officer's sons can be entered at the expense of ratings' sons and orphans.
Last year, the Minister attempted to justify the entry of officers' sons on the argument that the term "seamen", in the original charter, did not mean ratings only, but included officers. What nonsense. This argument provided the biggest laugh on the lower deck since the General Election of 1910, when the Liberal candidate at Portsmouth said that he was in favour of providing ladders for ratings to get into their hammocks, though he did not say where they would stow 1,000 ladders in the ship.
Everyone knows that, throughout the ages, separate terms have always been used for officers and seamen—very often other terms, too, which I cannot mention tonight. Moreover, I have a Greenwich Hospital reference which states:
Down to 1850"—
that is, for over 150 years—
warrant officers who desired to enjoy the benefits of the Hospital were compelled to abrogate their rank and enter as seamen only.
Does that convince the Minister that "seamen" meant, and was intended to mean, ratings only? No answer. He is stumped again—middle stump.
The Minister called in aid of his nonsense that "seamen" meant officers the fact that Admiral Cochrane, over a century ago, called his life story, "The Autobiography of a Seaman". So what? After the First World War, a naval officer wrote a book with the title, "The Narrative of a Naval Nobody". Does


that make all naval officers nobodies? How stupid can a Minister get in trying to prove a petty point which he must know is wrong? The Minister himself wrote a book on his limited Second World War experience and gave it the title, "Very Ordinary Seaman". Does that make all seamen ordinary? Of course not. I was not an ordinary seaman. My service certificate records that I was a very good able seaman and recommended for accelerated promotion.
What has been the position at Holbrook since 1949? Here I can provide some information for the hon. Member for Merton and Morden. Over 500 commissioned officers' sons have been entered, to the exclusion of 500 ratings' sons and orphans since 1949. Obviously, every place taken by an officer's son is one less for a rating's son. The hon. and learned Member for Buckinghamshire, South, who was in his place just now, argued recently:
Those who are unfortunately left out will not…be educated at some of the very poor establishments."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th October. 1965; Vol. 718, c. 528.]
The hon. Member is wrong again. That is just what does happen.
Many of the orphaned sons of naval and merchant service ratings, fishermen and lifeboatmen, all of whom are entitled to entry at this Royal Hospital School, are in the lesser orphanages, including Dr. Barnardo's Homes. This is another scandalous feature of the situation today. In saying that, I am not disparaging Dr. Barnardo's Homes, but these sons of naval ratings, and particularly orphans, deserve to be in this better school.
When I argue that officers' sons should not be there, that is no attack on officers' sons as such. They can get their full educational allowance to go into any school in the country. Why should they want to be in the ratings' and orphans' school? Moreover, if it is a question of serving officers or serving ratings, or ex-Service officers or ex-Service ratings, being in difficulty, they can get funds from Greenwich Hospital to go into any other school. So the position is that officers have got a right of entry into any school in the country, with naval education fund grant; but, in spite of that, they want to get their sons into this school at the expense of ratings' sons and orphans.
What is the present position at the school? The hon. Gentleman wanted

some figures. The total number of boys last term was 694, less than two-thirds the number who should be there. That number includes 79 sons of direct entry officers, 157 sons of officers commissioned from the lower deck, and only 458 sons of ratings. So the number of sons of ratings is less than half the number at Greenwich and the number for which Holbrook was originally planned.
The number of orphans is only 84. Will anyone try to tell me that there are only 84 suitable orphans from the whole of the Mercantile Marine, from all the seafarers and all the Navy? It is complete nonsense. That number of 84 is less than one in eight, though the majority should be orphans, and it includes orphans of direct entry officers, 13, of commissioned officers from the lower deck, 7, and of ratings only 64—or less than one in 10 in the total number at the school.
The number of new entries last term was only 24, including 15 sons of ratings, 8 sons of commissioned officers from the lower deck, and one son of a direct entry officer. Eight, or only one-third, were orphans, including orphans of ratings, 6, of lower deck officers, one, of direct entry officers, one.
Why was the entry so low, and why was the number of officers' sons so high? Last year, there was an entry of 36, with only 3 officers' sons and 33 ratings' sons, instead of the current number of 24 entries. Under a Labour Government and Minister, when the position of ratings should be improved, matters are getting worse.
What is the number of applications and rejections? Last year, there was a term with 82 applications and 46 rejections. Over 50 per cent. were refused. No application failed on medical or interview grounds. The education examination was the stumbling block and a number of the boys' headmasters considered the standard too high for a boy at 10 to 11 years of age. In other words, the school would have refused Nelson.
Among the ratings' sons refused entry was the son of a petty officer. The boy had a fine record at work and play and excellent conduct. Another reject was the son of a leading seaman who has made the Navy his career. Another boy in the same school was also refused. The headmasters concerned consider that all these


boys should without doubt have been entered in the school. But this sort of boy stands no chance against the sons of officers who have been specially primed for entry. Cut out the officers' sons, and the ratings' sons and orphans who are now rejected would be accepted.
The hon. Member for Merton and Morden argued for differential fees. Does not he know that there are differential fees now? To find out the fees, one needs a slide rule, because there are about 99 different types. It is a disgraceful position. Fees were not introduced until 1957—only nine years ago. The fee is £120 per annum and the hon. Member argued for a larger fee. Let us be clear about this, because, obviously, that is not the full figure.
There should be no fee at all. Everyone tries to get it reimbursed in full, or in part, as they should. Serving officers and ratings number 322—nearly half the total number of parents—and have no difficulty because they can claim full repayment from the Navy education allowance. They pay nothing. I make no complaint about that repayment. The problem is mainly for the ex-ratings, including the disabled and those invalided out of the Service and also, especially, ratings' widows. After all, these were one of the main objectives of the original charter.
My argument is that these seriously handicapped parents should also pay nothing. Admittedly, they can apply to their local education authority, which may pay part or refuse to pay anything on the grounds that it already provides a full education. The Minister claims that Greenwich Hospital considers all compassionate cases and makes reductions where necessary. What we want is to be told the interpretation of the word "compassionate".
One would expect a rating's widow, obviously the worst off, to be wholly exempt from the fees, but what happens in her case? First, she goes through a means test by her local education authority and gets a part of the fee or not. Then Greenwich Hospital puts the poor woman through another means test—all this at the time of her greatest trouble, when she has lost her husband. The result is that last term 13 of the 64

ratings' widows had to contribute to the education of their orphaned sons at the Navy's own orphanage.
The 1966–67 Estimates show that £74,000 is to be obtained this year from fees, mainly from the Naval Education Fund and the local education authorities. What is the position of the widows? One widow is charged £5 per term—£15 per annum—which is included in this £74,000. To me, that is the equivalent of stealing the milk from the baby's bottle. What nonsense it is. This is one of the worst national scandals. On the one hand, we have serving "brass hats" with comparatively good pay themselves, paying nothing, while, on the other, ratings' widows are milked of their meagre pensions and hard-earned wages. I ask the Minister what would be the cost of cancelling these paltry fees for ratings' orphans.
The Minister refused to give the rank of the senior officer with a son at Holbrook. Is it an admiral, with pay of £3,500 per annum and a large pension when he retires? I myself know of one captain, if not more, with a rate of pay for the rank of up to £3,000 per annum with extra allowances, with a son at the school. Does the Minister deny that? Thus, we have ratings' widows with £4 per week pension who have to go out to work and contribute to the £4 million funds while, on the other hand, officers with thousands a year pay nothing.
What a charity. No wonder Greenwich Hospital does not get more applications from ratings' widows—just imagine having to go through two means test—when the Admiralty makes it almost impossible financially for them to get their sons into the school which was founded for them. I will give examples of the Admiralty's treatment of ratings' widows. The first is that of a chief petty officer with 24 years' service. He died on service. Surely this should have meant full entitlement for his widow and his orphan. His widow received a naval widow's pension of £70 per annum and had to pay £70 in school fees. In other words, they took her widow's pension away in order to educate her son.
The second example is that of a petty officer with 12 years' service who died after leaving the Navy so that his widow received the £4 per week pension. She had three young children and was charged


£15 per annum for her orphan son at the Navy's own orphanage. The third case is that of a petty officer with 20 years' service who was invalided out—just the type to be catered for—and died shortly afterwards. His widow had six children of school age and was charged £26 a year. No one would credit that this wealthy nautical charity would charge such petty sums to the widows of naval ratings, who had given the best years of their lives to the service of their country, for the education of their orphan sons at the Navy's own orphanage.
The Minister argues that these widows are content to pay. What nonsense. They are content to pay only because they do not know that they should not pay and that officers do not pay. If a widow is told that the fee is £120 per annum, and that the Greenwich Hospital can only make reimbursement up to £105, she is faced with the loaded pistol alternative of having to pay £15 per annum or not having her son at the school. No ratings' widows should ever be placed on the spot by the Admiralty, a public Department. All ratings' widows should have the full fees reimbursed, if not by the local authority then from the £250,000 annual income which makes the Greenwich Hospital such a wealthy charity.
The hon. Member for Merton and Morden said nothing about ex-Service ratings. His point is to get more money from the Naval education allowance and, where one cannot get that, to refuse entry. In consequence, it will not only be ratings' orphans but ex-Service men's sons who will not be able to get in.
The reply to the argument about there being more officers and fewer ratings is that one should look at the ratio of officers to ratings. In the Royal Navy and the Mercantile Marine the ratio of ratings to officers is probably about 100 to 1 and so, on the ratio argument, there should be 100 ratings' sons entered for every officer's son. The more one inquires into it, the crazier are the facts shown to be and the more dishonourable is the Admiralty shown to be in the payment of fees.
The Admiralty policy is clear for all to see. First, it does not want ratings' orphans and only pays lip-service to the entry of such boys—it could otherwise

easily get in touch with them and enter more of them. Secondly, it wants to get all sons of serving officers and men in the school in order that their fees will be wholly paid by the naval education allowance, so that the Admiralty can then obtain the full cost of the fees provided which, with additional family commitments, might rise to the full cost of £400 per annum for each boy.
It is obvious that ex-Service ratings and widows will not be able to find the money to pay the fees and that any increase in fees will exclude more and more ex-Service men and widows until entries of boys from such parents are completely extinguished. Yet it was for them that the orphanage was founded. The third aim is to increase the proportion of officers' and to reduce that of ratings' sons. At present, the ratio is about one-third officers' and two-thirds ratings' sons. How long will it be before that is reversed to two-thirds officers' and only one-third ratings' and, finally, all officers' and no ratings' sons?
The Admiralty's ultimate object and the object of the hon. Member for Merton and Morden—and I am glad that he has been here to speak tonight, because he has made it crystal clear—is that the Navy's orphanage for the orphans of ratings should become a fee-paying school for the sons of officers only and a preparatory school for the entry of cadets at the age of 17 or 18 into Dartmouth College. There may be a naval argument for this plan, but certainly not a national one and not one for funds from the Department of Education, as the Minister has argued on previous occasions.
We should then have the main stream of entry of officers from one source to the exclusion of other schools with a variety of types and education. This would put the Navy back into the old Dartmouth College entry system when cadets were limited to those of 12 or 13 years of age from preparatory schools. This outdated scheme received its first blow in 1912, from Sir Winston Churchill, as a Liberal First Lord of the Admiralty, with the special entry system of 17 to 18 year-old entrants which, since the last war, has become the main system. An officers' sons only school may not come in my time, but come it will as surely as night follows day.


In his reply to last year's debates on the Estimates the Minister said:
I know that my hon. and gallant Friend feels passionately about this matter—he has shown it in this House and we all understand it…".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th October, 1965; Vol. 718, c. 574.]
Who would not feel passionately with my knowledge of the old school and the poor boys who were entered and of the fact that in the 33 years of this "posh" new school at Holbrook more than 10,000 ratings' sons, including thousands of orphans, have not been entered who would have been entered at Greenwich.
That is a measure of the scandal of this orphanage—the fact that a poor boy of humble birth like myself would not today be accepted and allowed to mix with the comparatively well-off officers' sons. I was not born with a silver spoon in my mouth, like the Minister, who does not really understand what poverty means. I was the son of a rating and I was an orphan, and I have known poverty.
In every other debate on social services one of the main arguments from both sides of the House is on behalf of the widows and the orphans. This Greenwich Hospital debate is the only one in which the Ministry and the authorities and the responsible Minister argue against the widows and the orphans and do all they can to prevent them from receiving their full entitlements from this ancient and wealthy nautical charity.
As long as I am here I will fight the Admiralty and expose these scandals and argue for the increased entry of seamen's sons, particularly orphans, into my old school and that no fees should be paid by ratings' widows. When I am gone, I hope that others will continue the fight against what is one of the greatest national charity scandals of the century.

8.16 p.m.

Dame Joan Vickers: We all respect the great interest of the old watchdog in this problem, the hon. and gallant Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Commander Pursey). We know from many debates the interest which he takes and his great knowledge. If he will forgive me, I will not follow the issues which he raised, which would be better dealt with by his hon. Friend the Minister. We all respect the very great work which the hon. and

gallant Gentleman puts into preparing his speeches, and I am sure that we shall continue to listen with interest to his arguments and to see that this great school remains predominantly for the sons of ratings. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Merton and Morden (Mr. Humphrey Atkins) is now on the management committee of the school and able to take part in the debate today.
I want to limit myself to several questions especially about the accounts. I have been interested in the school for some time, because I have a number of constituents who have been educated there. I was a little disappointed that the Minister did not give us rather more details about the educational progress made at the school, particularly as there has been a slight change in the system, and also about its sporting achievements.
One of the things which sometimes worries me about the school is that it is rather cut off, rather far away. I understand that there is contact between the school and H.M.S. "Ganges", but I would like to know what contacts the boys have with outside organisations. It is essential for pupils in boarding schools to have some outside social contacts. Do the boys go to theatres and are they occasionally allowed to go to the cinema, for instance? Do they go to Portsmouth or to other places where there are ships as the school is predominantly for those whom we would like to encourage to enter the Royal Navy? What instruction do they get? Do they spend some time on board ships? Are they invited to go to sea, and do they visit the Royal Dockyards? All of that would be a great advantage to them if they planned to join the Navy.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman said that no entrants had been failed on medical grounds and none on interview for entry. Is that accurate? If so, is the educational standard rather too high if the hon. and gallant Gentleman is correct in what he says about the numbers of boys who have been rejected? Perhaps we can be told how the education standards compare with those of other State schools. Can we be told how many O-levels have been gained by boys and how many A-levels, and how the Sixth D form is progressing and what is the average age at which the boys leave their schools? I raise this last


point because it appears that a lot of pupils leave at a rather younger age than I would have thought desirable.
I have been in contact with the Minister about the provision of fares for visitors. Some of the boys come from rather financially poor homes, and I want to know what encouragement is given to their parents or relations to visit them, and what provision is made for the boys about fares for going to and from home. I have written to the Minister about this over one case in which I was particularly interested, but I would like to know what the general attitude is to the payment of fares. Are the boys asked whether they can afford the fares, and do their parents have to fill in a form, or can they get a railway voucher to go home?
Dealing with the accounts, my hon. Friend the Member for Merton and Morden remarked upon the revenue from property in the statement of income and expenditure of the Greenwich Hospital. I see that this is to be considerably increased in 1966–67. Might not this be an overestimate? Will the Minister be allowed to put up the rents during the period of freeze or restraint? Are the Government to allow to put up rents when other people are not allowed to put up prices? If they are not, then the figure of £17,650 may be an over-estimate. On page 3 we note that the amount to be spent on Greenwich Hospital pensions to officers and grants towards the education of children is to fall by £1,500. The other grants, on the same page, to the Greenwich Hospital pensions for seamen and marines are to go down by £200. As there are fewer people requiring pensions than I would have thought, it was not very considerate to cut down pensions.
The cost of living has gone up, and although the hon. and gallant Member for Kingston upon Hull, East has said that a lot of the people do not need the pensions, I beg to differ. I have found that a number of my constituents would welcome this pension. The £200 should at least be spent on increasing their pensions if there are fewer applications.
My hon. Friend the Member for Merton and Morden referred to the rent of buildings lent to the Royal Naval College, and I have previously raised the same point in other debates. I am glad to say that in one case it was considered

and the rent raised. Can the Minister say what kind of property the Ministry is investing in? It is estimated that there will be increased rents from this type of property, and can he say whether the rents will be increased?
Page 5 deals with pensions to seamen, which are to be decreased. I hope that the Minister will consider changing this and if there are less pensioners, will give them some extra help. If we look at the cost of the Royal Hospital we note that the provisions for water, heating and lighting have gone up and repairs and maintenance are down. The day-to-day running is going to be more expensive, and I would have thought that that proved that the people receiving their pensions would need additional help.
I would like to raise a point about the 1964–65 accounts. It says on page 3 that stocks sold during the year had resulted in a net loss of over £112,000.

Mr. Mallalieu: Can the hon. Lady say whether these are the estimates or the accounts?

Dame Joan Vickers: I am dealing with the accounts for 1964–65. There has been this considerable loss. On the next page one sees that the market value of the British Government securities is falling. I presume that this is mainly because of the likelihood of a fall in the securities. I realise that certain charities are tied in the manner that they can invest, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman can tell me whether this applies in this case. If not, it seems that the investments need looking into to see whether we cannot obtain stocks which would not result in such a loss.
There is also the question of loans outstanding. What are these loans for and what interest is being paid to the Hospital? These accounts do not give us very much detail when we are considering the cost of the school and how we can best help the running of it. It would be helpful to have some further details. On page 7 one sees the estimated expenditure to officers and contributions towards children's education was £21,500 last year, while the actual expenditure was £16,019.
The same is true of the next item dealing with Greenwich Hospital pensions. Was this an over-estimate or have the


people had a cut in their pensions or in the contributions towards their childrens' education? I notice that this includes the Canada educational grant, and we ought to spend this to the full because it is given for the benefit of this school.
I welcome this debate, and I am not really in agreement with my hon. Friend on the Front Bench. This is the only chance that we have of putting forward our views, unless we have it on the Naval Estimates debate. We have learned in the past a good deal from the speeches of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East. I would like to end on a rather feminine point. I hope that one day we may have a woman on the management committee. I have been to the school and I came back with certain suggestions with regard to studies and other matters. I am glad to say that interest was shown in my proposals and certain action taken. Therefore, I hope that in the distant future, when the appointment of further people to the management committee is being considered, this point will be taken into consideration.
The Minister has had a lot of bricks thrown at him, but I should like to pay tribute to him, not only for the way in which he always answers these debates, but for the fact that he has served on the management committee for a number of years and has done his level best to bring the school up to its present standard.
I should like to make a final point to the hon. and gallant Member for Kingston-upon-Hull, East. With better education, men get promotion in the Navy far more quickly than they used to do, and we should be pleased that this is so. One must not be too critical about officer's sons, because many of the officers have risen from the ranks and do not have any capital behind them. Many of them have had the difficulty of buying their own homes and keeping up a standard which probably their parents did not have to maintain. Is shows progress when a number of these men who have risen from the ranks are anxious for their sons to attend the school.

Commander Pursey: Would the hon. Lady accept my point that the officers can send their sons to any school in the country and get the fees from the local

education authority and pay nothing out of their own pockets? My argument is that this school should be wholly reserved for the sons of ratings, particularly ex-Service ratings, and those who are not in a position to get anything from the naval educational fund and consequently are in a far worse position than the officers.

Dame Joan Vickers: I do not quite agree with the hon. and gallant Gentleman because most local authorities take into consideration the income of the individual before giving a grant. We should be very pleased that these men are anxious for their sons to follow in their footsteps. Anything that we can do to help them we should do. We should be proud when men who have risen from the ranks are anxious that their sons shall have a better opportunity than they did and want them to go to a naval school and continue the naval tradition of the family.

8.31 p.m.

Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: I thank the hon. Lady the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers) for the things she said about my service on the management committee. I should have liked to be able to reciprocate by saying that the moment there is a vacancy on the committee she shall have it. Unfortunately, appointments to the committee are nothing whatever to do with me. That is a matter for the House. I have no doubt that, in view of the great interest in the school shown by hon. Members, and particularly by the hon. Lady, this will be borne very much in mind when the time comes to make a further appointment.
I wish that I could answer all the hon. Lady's questions. I suspect that one or two of them were out of order, because they were on the accounts and not on the estimates. Therefore, I cannot deal with those. But I will do my best to reply in writing to such points as she raised which I cannot answer now.
The hon. Lady asked about the educational progress of the school. The figures for 1965 were very satisfactory. One hundred and twenty-two boys gained 55 subject passes at advanced level and 353 at ordinary level. This was, I understand, a considerable advance on the


previous year. I am told that this year's results will be even better. I do not wish to steal the headmaster's thunder on that.
On the investment side, I understand that the increases which we expect from rents will come from a switch in properties, to a large extent, to leasehold where the rents are already higher. It is not a question of increasing rents. Certainly we are not getting exemption from any Rent Act. I gather that a higher rent is obtained from leasehold property.
The hon. Lady made an interesting point about the school being cut off. It is geographically a bit cut off from some of the main centres. All boarding schools are cut off even if they are in the main centres—or they used to be. As the hon. Lady knows, we have very close relations with H. M.S. "Ganges". A fair amount of visiting—Navy days, and so on—is done. But to me the most interesting thing is the interchange of visits between our school and a local girls' school for dances, and so on. This is something which in years gone by would have been very much frowned on. It is not now. It is very much encouraged. It gives enormous delight, both to the girls and boys, and increases their education.
I now turn with immense regret to the speech which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Commander Pursey) has inflicted upon the House for the 20th time. It is becoming an absolute abuse of Parliament procedure when, year after year on these Estimates, we have to listen to the same speech, which in no way shows any recognition of the arguments that have been put. He goes on and on and on about the nautical orphanage or the naval orphanage as though it were exclusively a school for orphans. It was not under the original charter, and it is not now. I wish that I could make my hon. and gallant Friend understand the harm that he has been doing in recent years by these misstatements of what the school is about.
Orphans have priority. Not a single orphan who is not educationally subnormal has ever been kept out by an officer's son. Any orphan who is qualified for the school has so far been accepted unless he has been educationally subnormal. But the school is not only for orphans. Even in the old charter that is

made clear, as my hon. and gallant Friend showed when he read from it. He not only made the same speech as he made last year; he made most of my speech in repetition. He quoted the article explaining on what basis the school was founded, which provided that it was for
the maintenance and education of the children of seamen happening to be slain or disabled in such sea service.
A disabled man is not killed; he is disabled, and his children are not orphans. But they are entitled to go to the school.
I have had experience of the effect that my hon. and gallant Friend's tirade has had on some of the boys. A rating's son was tackled when he returned to the school from his holidays by a woman who thought that my hon. and gallant Friend knew what he was talking about, who said, "You have no right to be in this school. It is disgraceful that you have kept out orphans." The boy was seriously upset. That is the sort of thing that my hon. and gallant Friend is doing, and it is absolutely intolerable.

Commander Pursey: Answer the questions I have put.

Mr. Mallalieu: Every single question that was put by my hon. and gallant Friend this year was put last year, and answered.

Commander Pursey: My questions were not answered.

Mr. Mallalieu: He comes here now wallowing in emotive tears about the hardship that widows are suffering. After the last debate, I begged him to let me have examples of anybody who was suffering hardship, because we were determined that no hardship should be suffered. I received no reply. I wrote to him again, and got no reply. I wrote to him four or five times more, but he did not reply once—because I do not believe that he could find any widow who, through the operation of the scheme of entry, was suffering hardship. If he has such information, instead of sounding off in the House, why does not he write, not to me, because I am no longer the chairman, but to my noble Friend, Lord Winterbottom, outlining the cases and giving details. Let him find anyone in respect of whom there is even a suggestion of hardship and we shall do our best to make sure that the situation is put right.


But he does not do that. All he does is to sound off and try to make the headlines.

Commander Pursey: When the Minister has finished that tirade, will he give way?

Mr. Mallalieu: Yes—if my hon. and gallant Friend will not take more than half an hour.

Commander Pursey: Does my right hon. Friend deny that these widows are being charged the fees that I have quoted? I do not want to pursue the argument at this stage any further, but abuse does not answer questions. I have given my right hon. Friend cases, and there has been no answer. I have given the names of the people. I have given him particulars of rejections and the names of orphans, and of everyone.

Mr. Mallalieu: I have not got the names of any of them—unless they are the same as the names last year, which I dealt with fully in last year's debate.
Just one example has been put up today. I have not been sent the details, and I do not know them, but, as I have said, if my hon. and gallant Friend will have the decency, instead of sounding off like this without warning, to send detailed cases to us, I guarantee that we will make certain that no hardship is suffered.
The hon. Member for Merton and Morden (Mr. Humphrey Atkins) asked a number of questions, to some of which I hope to be able to reply. One, which has crossed the minds of many of us from time to time, is whether we should not consider abandoning these debates in the House. I may say that, at times, when I get angry with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Hull, East, I have the greatest temptation to agree, but that would involve us in legislation, and I do not think that there is much chance of getting that put through, in any timetable. I agree with the hon. Lady the Member for Devonport that it is good for the House of Commons to turn its mind directly to a specific school rather than speak in generalisations about education.
The hon. Member for Merton and Morden asked two questions about the

rent for Greenwich College. The actual basis on which we charge the rent, I understand, is an independent valuation of what it is worth from time to time, and the rent is charged accordingly. His main point, however, was that there are variations in the rent which is paid. This is a pure accident. In one year, I think, it had to do with the fact that someone's office was moved and only three quarters were payable in one year and five quarters in the next. The rate of rent remained the same.
I believe that that will happen again, that a computer will be installed and that we will get the rent only on the day that the computer says. The total amount of rent payable is the same, but it depends on the number of payments made during the year.
The hon. Member asked some detailed questions to which I am not able to give immediate replies, but, as with the hon. Lady, I will see that he gets the answers in writing. He mentioned the possibility of differential fees and, I believe, was thinking particularly of the serving officers and ratings who get the educational allowances. It is true' that the naval education allowance—which went up in December and is higher than the figure which he gave—more than covers any fees which we charge.
However, if we were to charge them a higher fee, and raised the fee of £120 to £150 or £200, the parents concerned would unfortunately have to pay Income Tax on it. This is a taxable allowance and might cause some hardship in certain circumstances. There is a further point, that this is taxpayers' money and I am not sure that it would be carefully safeguarded. At any rate, this is something which we might consider, because it is obvious from the Estimates which I present to the House now that there will be financial difficulty unless something can be done. I very much hope that changes in investments and the skill of our panel will help us to increase incomes in that way.
If that does not happen, it will be impossible to go ahead with the still further developments in the school which we want to see. We have had reference to Form 6D. That is going well. Boys are staying not only for one year more but for two years more, and the tendency is to stay longer still—which will involve


an E form, with extra staff, all very much an educational service but, unhappily, all costing money. I can assure the House that during the coming year the management committee and Greenwich Hospital generally will do everything that possibly can be done to increase the income of the Foundation so that the school, which is going so well, will continue to do well and will further improve.
May I once again repeat to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Hull, East: if he can produce any single instance of anybody who is suffering a hardship through having to pay his fees, and if he will bring the case to me, I will look at it and see that it is put right. But he has failed to do so in the past and, because of the very reasonable way in which the fees are charged, I suspect that he will be equally incapable of doing so now.

Dame Joan Vickers: Will the hon. Member say a word about pensions? Are pensions being cut?

Mr. Mallalieu: That rate of pension is not being cut. Indeed, there is a possibility that in one way the rates of pension may go up. They were held by the disregard at 15s. That has been increased to £1. It may be possible to consider making some increase in that 15s. to, say, 16s. or so. But I cannot give any definite assurance at present. It is being looked at by the accountants. We do not know the size of the problem. But there is certainly no question of a cut.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Statement of the Estimated Income and Expenditure of Greenwich Hospital and Travers' Foundation, for the year ending on 31st March 1967, which was laid before this House on 23rd May, be approved.

Orders of the Day — ELECTRICITY INDUSTRY (BORROWING POWERS)

8.48 p.m.

The Minister of Power (Mr. Richard Marsh): I beg to move,
That the Electricity (Borrowing Powers) Order 1966, a draft of which was laid before this House on 18th October, be approved.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): It might be for the convenience of the House to consider, at the same time the Scottish Order.

Mr. Marsh: That would be convenient. It is probably appropriate for me to mention that, as hon. Member for Greenwich, this is the eighth year that I have sat through a debate on the Greenwich Hospital and Travers' Foundation and have not been called. Perhaps it would have been inappropriate for me to be called tonight.
The subject with which we now deal is important. These are short and very clear Orders, but they involve very large sums of money and raise a very important issue. The electricity industry is characterised by a very fast rate of growth and by very large capital requirements. An adequate and efficient supply is clearly essential not only for the future of the electricity industry as such but for the growth and prosperity of the economy as a whole and the improvement of the entire nation's living standards. For these reasons, the provision of the necessary plant and equipment must have very high priority. It is, therefore, inevitable that from time to time the industry will need to increase its powers to borrow.
The House last considered the industry's borrowing powers in 1963, when the Electricity and Gas Bill was debated. That Act raised the limit of borrowings—and I am afraid that there are many figures in this speech, but they are important—for the industry in England and Wales to £3,300 million, with provision for raising the limit by Order by a further £1,100 million to £4,400 million.
I will come to Scotland in a moment and deal, first, with England and Wales. At the time of the Electricity and Gas Act, the Electricity Council estimated that the capital requirements of the industry in England and Wales for the years 1963–64 to 1966–67 would total £2,375 million. On


this basis, the interim limit of £3,300 million was expected to be reached by about March, 1967, and the upper limit of £4,400 million by about March, 1970. To date, the forecast has proved almost surprisingly accurate. The total amount borrowed at the end of last March had reached £2,867 million and the £3,300 million interim limit is still expected to be reached by about next March.
During the three years 1963–64 to 1965–66, capital requirements totalled about £1,580 million, of which £734 million, or about 46·5 per cent., was financed from the industry's own resources. In its Annual Report for 1965, the Electricity Council estimates the industry's capital requirements over the period 1967–68 to 1971–72 at £3,281 million. The programme on which this estimate is based is subject to the Government's approval and to annual review, but there are a number of uncertainties surrounding the industry's capital programme and its financing.
I will be referring presently to some of those uncertainties, but I should say straight away, because this is the purpose of the debate tonight, that they have led me to the conclusion that the House should at this stage have another opportunity of considering the industry's borrowing requirements again before the upper limit of £4,400 million is reached.
The Order before the House tonight will, therefore, raise the industry's borrowing limit to a new interim figure of £4,100 million, which, on current expectations, the Electricity Council considers should meet its demands until about March, 1969. As I have said, however, this forecast is subject to considerable uncertainty, and a new Order will then be required and the House will be able to take a fresh look at the industry's borrowing requirements at that stage.
For the two Scottish electricity boards, the Electricity and Gas Act fixed a borrowing limit of £500 million with an increase permissible by Order of up to £80 million. The outstanding borrowings of the two boards at the end of March totalled £474 million. Therefore, again, the interim limit is expected to be reached in December. This also is very close indeed to the forecast made in 1963, when the limit was expected to be reached by about March, 1967. The uncertainties

applying to the borrowing requirments of the industry in England and Wales also apply to Scotland, with the difference that in the case of the Scottish boards their upper limit is not likely to carry them much beyond March, 1969. In the circumstances, therefore, it seems appropriate in their case to go to the upper limit of £580 million.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: The Minister has said that in the case of England and Wales, the House will have a second opportunity to consider the matter, but what he has just said will not give us the chance of a second consideration concerning Scotland.

Mr. Marsh: I think that that is so. I would like to discuss it with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, who will be replying to the debate.
I would like to refer in rather more detail to some of the uncertainties which make the estimating of this industry's future borrowing unusually difficult on this occasion. In the first place, there is the uncertainty about the likely trend in the growth of electricity demand on which the boards' capital development proposals have to be faced.

Sir Gerald Nabarro: Hear, hear.

Mr. Marsh: I am grateful, even if it is for the first and last time, to have the hon. Gentleman agreeing with me.
The Electricity Council and the boards in England and Wales have prepared their latest plans on the basis of a growth in demand of rather more than 8 per cent. per annum. On the basis of that forecast, and in an effort to improve the width of safety margin, the industry expects to bring into service about 27,000 megawatts of new generating plant between now and 1971, together with additions to the transmission and distribution networks.
The Electricity Council's forecast of load growth was made last January. It was prepared, I freely admit, on the assumption that the rate of growth in the economy for the period to 1970 of 3·8 per cent. per year envisaged in the National Plan would be achieved and, of course, it will not. We do not want to spend the evening debating that topic but it is a major factor in this connection, and it


increases the level of uncertainty in forecasting the prospects for this industry.
Another uncertainty is the impact on the electricity industry of supplies of natural gas from the North Sea. Yesterday, in a debate on the coal industry in which some hon. Members now present took part, I said that the prospects in the North Sea look very encouraging, but the effect that natural gas will have on electricity demand cannot be assessed until we have a great deal more knowledge of the size of the discoveries and the price of the supply, and how the gas will be best taken in this country.
The effect that natural gas will have will depend on so many unknowns that any assessment is bound to be highly speculative. I sometimes believe that people who make such dogmatic assertions, sometimes in the Press and sometimes in this House—though not, of course, by hon. Members present—should bear in mind this factor of very considerable uncertainty. The implications, including the effect on the other fuels will, of course, be carefully considered during the review of fuel policy which I have in hand.
The problem is that we do not yet have the information, because we do not know how much natural gas is there, but we cannot wait until we do know before beginning to plan the policies which will continue during the period when natural gas is on shore. So we have to take into account the assumption, bearing in mind that we do not yet know the difficulties.
Besides the uncertainties as to the likely rate of growth of electricity demand and, consequently, the size of the industry's capital development programme, there are also uncertainties about the proportion of the industry's investment requirements which it will be able to finance out of its own resources and the proportion which it will require to borrow. In the light of the White Paper on the Financial and Economic Obligations of the Nationalised Industries, the boards in England and Wales agreed to seek to earn an average gross return, before depreciation, of about 12½ per cent. on their average net assets for the five years 1962–63 to 1966–67.
During the first four years, the industry as a whole has achieved a return of 12·3 per cent., representing some £1,411million,

of which £262 million was balance of revenue. The gross return for these years has been quite close to the objective, despite the fact that, because of a larger capital programme and higher costs, investment is now expected to be about £600 million greater than was originally estimated. In those circumstances, the figures represent quite a considerable achievement.
As to the immediate future, the effect of the prices standstill and the general economic retrenchment, which will affect sales—and, therefore, profits—will be to reduce the proportion of capital requirements which the boards will be able to finance from their own resources. Another factor which will bear on the industry's financial position is the financial objective for the period after 1966–67, which has yet to be agreed.
Because of these uncertainties about load growth, capital requirements and the size of the contribution which the boards will be able to make out of their internal resources towards their capital investment, the Order before the House places an interim limit on borrowing for the industry in England and Wales of £4,100 million so that the House may look again at the position within the next two or three years. I hope that, in the circumstances, the House will endorse this proposal, because I feel very strongly—and I am sure that virtually all hon. Members who who are regular attenders at this sort of debate recognise—that these are very vast sums, and the House should have an opportunity to look at them.

Sir G. Nabarro: They are too long term. Having regard to the assertions that the Minister has made so cogently about uncertainties, why have we to estimate this evening three years ahead? Having regard to the fact that capital plant today does not need a three-year look ahead, why cannot we just go 18 months' ahead, and then look at it again?

Mr. Marsh: I shall come later to some of the answers to the point raised by the hon. Member. All I say at the moment is that we have made a move towards virtue and we should get a modicum of credit for coming thus far.
I should now like to say a few words about the massive expansion in the industry's plant which the borrowing under this Order will help to make possible. The


Central Electricity Generating Board's present plans, which are subject to approval by the Government, envisage that a total output capacity of about 62,000 MW. will be in service for the 1971–72 winter. The bulk of the new capacity to be commissioned in the next five years will be in 500 MW units, most of which will be in 2,000 MW stations. These very large units represent a notable advance in technology which will earn economies both in capital and operating cost. The first of the 500 MW units began producing electricity at Ferrybridge "C" in February and another at West Burton, in September. Others are expected to come into service shortly.
In addition to the expansion of generating capacity, the Generating Board plans substantial expenditure on strengthening the national grid to take electricity from the power stations to the area boards. The Board is now building a new 400 kV. transmission system which should be largely completed by the early 1970s. The operation of the super grid at 400 kV. will greatly improve both the flexibility and the economy of the Board's operations. When completed, it should suffice, with relatively minor extensions, through to the 1980s. The area boards will also require to spend large sums strengthening their distribution networks to meet the increasing demand from existing consumers and connecting new consumers to the supply.
I move to another connected point. It is not surprising that the winter position is very much in mind at the moment. A journalist said to me shortly after I became Minister of Power, "What is your ambition?" That is the sort of daft question one is asked on these occasions. I thought carefully and said, "If I still had any friends by the end of next winter I would be very happy and it would satisfy me." Everyone is very much concerned with the winter position. The Generating Board plans on the basis of a 17 per cent. margin of generating plant over the estimated demand in average cold spells. This margin is to cover plant which will inevitably be out of service for one reason or another, and also to guard against the risks of errors in forecasts necessarily made in winters ahead and severe weather.
We sometimes tend to believe that it is possible to forecast at long range changes in the weather, but I am not sure that my grandmother could not have done as well as regards forecasts for six months ahead as those who employ other methods. This is a very inaccurate business and planning has to take account of it. It also has to take account of exceptionally severe winters. Our winters are not even and when exceptionally severe the additional load placed on the services is very real.
Last winter the Board had a maximum margin of about 7 per cent. although for the first part of the winter the figure was lower. We all know what happened durnig the cold weather last November and January. When the plant to be in service last winter and this coming winter was ordered in the late 1950s and early 1960s the Generating Board was planning on the basis of a margin of 14 per cent. There was a shortfall from that, and the shortfall was the result of two factors, underestimation of load growth and plant not being in service as early as planned.
The difficulties caused by the inadequate margin were seriously increased last winter, when one of the coldest spells on record for November occurred at a time when the Board had some plant out of service for annual overhaul. We have been trying hard for the last few months—all through the all-to-few hot summer days—to try to ensure that this does not happen again and to plan for this coming winter. I hope that we shall be spared serious difficulties—I underline the word "serious"—this coming winter. The local distribution systems and the Generating Board's grid have been strengthened during the past year so that better use can be made of available generating plant.
In the middle of all this planning, in the summer came the seamen's strike, in May and June. I am not going into the rights and wrongs of this—that is another argument—but the effect on our winter fuel supplies was very serious indeed. Despite this, coal stocks at power stations are now at a record level and we should look at what this means in terms of the Board's contribution, and how it has affected the industry.
The strike put out of service for 47 days 45 ships normally engaged in supplying coal to about half the generating


plant in southern England at a time of the year when stocks were low after the winter. During that period we should have been building stocks up, but not only were we not building them up, we were running them down very rapidly. By using the national grid to the maximum extent the Board managed to maintain supplies of electricity in full during the whole of the period when coal shipments were stopped. This is an excellent illustration of the value of the grid system which enabled coal, which could not be transported by ships, to be shipped by wire through the national grid system. It went from the Midlands to enable the husbanding of stocks in the South.
It was a very expensive business. The community should be aware that the really magnificent exercise of the Generating Board, which got us through the winter, has now produced a situation where stocks are at a record level in power stations. That was not done without cost, and the cost to the C.E.G.B. for uneconomic operation during this period was about £2 million. This amount has to be found and paid for by somebody at some time. This was done without interfering with the summer plant maintenance programme or the construction programme for reinforcing the transmission system. At the same time, 1½ million tons of coal had been planned to be shipped to southern power stations during the period of the strike. The shortfall in stocks had to be made good before the winter, while, at the same time, keeping to the rest of the programme.
The fact that this has been achieved in view of all the difficulties reflects great credit on all concerned in the electricity, coal and transport industries. All of us at some stage or another have thrown brickbats at the Board, when the television picture got smaller, or when the lights got dimmer, or on those very rare occasions when there was a cut-off in the current. It is time the Board was given credit for what was an incredible achievement during that period.
What about the safety margin of the generating plant? With the new power stations coming into service, I think that it will be rather better than last winter. However, the margin will still not be satisfactory, and the Government are determined that the shortage will be made good as soon as possible. As I have said.

the Generating Board has a very substantial plant programme in hand, and it is now a question of getting this plant delivered, erected and working. On present plans, the Board should certainly have a satisfactory margin by the winter of 1967–68. However, it does depend on all these people getting plant delivered, erected and working, and the rate at which we can erect this plant, and the extent to which we can cut down the difficulties of construction, will be a major contribution.
Perhaps at this point I should say a word about the reduction in investment which the industry has agreed to make in 1967–68 as part of the economic measures announced in July. The reduction represents about 3 per cent. of the industry's annual investment and it will have no effect on the Generating Board's plant commissioning programme for a number of years ahead. The main short-term burden will fall on the distribution programmes of the area boards. Several years ago the area boards' networks were in many places inadequate, but since then there has been a very real all-round improvement. The reductions in investment will mean that the boards will make less progress than they had hoped in further strenghthening their distribution systems. I repeat that there is no reason to believe that the delay will be serious.
Now I will say a few words about the bearing the electricity industry's plans have on its rôle as a user of primary fuels. The elecricity industry produces a secondary fuel usually made from one or other of the primary fuels—coal, oil or nuclear energy. It is too early yet to say whether North Sea natural gas will be available in sufficient quantities for use in power stations, but this possibility is not being overlooked.
I have asked the Gas Council and the Central Electricity Generating Board to study jointly the factors involved. There are a number of factors in this decision. It may be possible, for example, for a dual-fired power station to use gas at times when the gas industry's demand is low. This would enable the better use of capital equipment for the benefit of both industries. The results of this and of related studies will be carefully considered during the review of fuel policy which is now well under way. Fortunately, the


conversion to natural gas-firing of existing power stations can be carried out comparatively quickly, so that waiting until we are sure that there will be adequate supplies should not result in any serious delay in using the gas.
The Generating Board is by far the country's largest user of fuel, accounting alone for about 74 million tons of coal equivalent in 1965–66, in addition to the uranium fuel used in nuclear power stations. The Board used about one-third of the coal industry's total output. No less than three-quarters of plant now being built will be coal-fired, so there can be no doubt that the electricity industry will be a very large user of coal for many years to come.
While recognising the interdependence of the electricity and coal industries, we all ought to be proud of and spare a word for the developments in the field of nuclear power. This is an area where Britain leads the world. I sometimes think that in this country self-denigration is the contemporary malaise anglais, which is neither beneficial nor attractive.
With the commissioning in September of the second reactor at the Sizewell Station, in Suffolk, the Generating Board, the South of Scotland Electricity Board and the Atomic Energy Authority between them have over 3,300 megawatts of nuclear power in full service. When Wylfa, the last station in the first nuclear programme, is commissioned in 1969, this country will have 5,000 megawatts of nuclear capacity in service.
The most significant development during the last year has been the announcement of the prospect of economic nuclear power from the second station to be built at Dungeness in Kent. Dungeness "B", which will incorporate an A.E.A. advanced gas-cooled reactor, will be the first station in the second nuclear power programme for the period 1970 to 1975. As a result of the low generating costs expected from the A.G.R. system, the Government decided that the industry should plan on the basis of an enlarged second programme of 8,000 megawatts.
I have made some of these points because they meet a few of the points which have been made by the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro). This is why, even at this stage, the industry

has to be able to plan for a fairly long distance ahead, because these are major activities which have to be planned far in advance.
I want to refer briefly to the electricity industry in Scotland.

Sir G. Nabarro: Before the Minister goes north of the Border, there is a Sassenach matter I want dealt with; and perhaps he would apply himself to it. Electricity consumers last year paid £12 million sterling in duty on fuel oil burned in power stations. Is it not a pernicious policy to tax electricity for industry in this fashion, and will not the right hon. Gentleman make representations to the Chancellor of the Exchequer at an early date to stabilise costs by removing altogether this pernicious form of taxation in England? Scotland is mostly water, anyway.

Mr. Marsh: I was very pleased to have the hon. Gentleman's intervention. He so seldom goes so long without saying something that I thought that there must be something seriously wrong with him. It will be a relief to the whole House that there is not. His was a perfectly reasonable and major point to make in a fuel policy debate. It goes much wider than the Orders.
The Government are at present concerned with three exercises in fuel planning, one a very short-term, immediate exercise to find out the position for next winter. That is very short-term indeed. Secondly, there is a rather larger exercise which will be finished in the early part of next year to try to create the framework, based on a series of assumptions, for a fuel policy which will take account of new developments in the North Sea.
Ultimately, we must have a flexible policy, some sort of very unsophisticated econometric model which will enable us to find the best contribution all the fuel industries can make to energy policy. There is a case for the protection of the coal industry on straight economic grounds that are nothing to do with social factors, which are sometimes exaggerated in these arguments. We are examining the argument, and the whole fuel economy will certainly be changed by the emergence of North Sea gas.
I am sure that when, at some future stage, we have gone further with the fuel


policy review we shall have a longer—I would not say more interesting—contribution from the hon. Gentleman, certainly as lively and as sonorous as on this occasion. But that is an issue that must be debated separately and at some length.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Would the right hon. Gentleman also make clear to the House that not only does the Scots industry, as well as the English, pay the pernicious fuel tax, but also 35s. extra per ton for coal.

Mr. Marsh: It would not be my wish to get involved in any Scottish dispute between the hon. Member and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, who will defend the Government's policies in relation to Scotland with his usual efficiency.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that the only policies the hon. Gentleman will defend will relate to these Orders.

Mr. Marsh: They certainly will, Mr. Speaker, because there is a separate Order for Scotland which we are taking at the same time. I meant only that my hon. Friend will deal with more of it than I shall. He will be able to deal much more specifically with Scottish problems.
In Scotland, the rate of increase in electricity demand has for some years been at a higher level than in England and Wales, and no sudden reversal of this trend is anticipated. Last winter, the maximum demand, adjusted to average cold spell conditions, was 4,100 megawatts, representing an annual rate of growth of 9 per cent. since 1956–57, and this is expected to grow to about 6,800 megawatts in 1971–72. Stations at present under construction are planned to meet the demand and to provide a plant margin of over 15 per cent.
To provide this generating plant, and to reinforce the transmission and distribution network to keep pace with the demands which will be made upon them, the Scottish boards will be investing at about £70 million a year. But the uncertainties which affect forecasts of load growth and financing apply equally to the Scottish electricity boards. In their case, also, new financial objectives must be agreed. The price increases announced by the South of Scotland Board in July were overtaken by the

prices standstill and have not been implemented.
Until financial objectives have been agreed and tariffs adjusted accordingly it is difficult to assess the level of future borrowing, but an increase of £80 million in their borrowing limit would be unlikely to carry the boards much beyond March, 1969. My hon. Friend is, therefore, asking the House to agree to the Secretary of State's proposal to extend the limit to the full £580 million.
I conclude with a few words about the rôle of electricity in fuel and power policy generally. There are a number of very important developments now taking place in fuel and power. I have already referred to the progress being made in nuclear power with the development of the A.G.R. and to the hopes of large discoveries of natural gas under the North Sea. Important technological developments are taking place in the coal industry, too.
These developments are bound to mean that the balance between the different industries is continually changing and throwing up new problems. This calls more than ever for a co-ordinated fuel policy, but one which is flexible enough to adjust itself to changing circumstances and needs. I have already referred to some of the uncertainties affecting the borrowing requirements of the electricity industry. The problem of reconciling the need for adequate and secure supplies with the need to avoid over-investment and wasteful competition is one of the most important facing the industries and the Ministry of Power. It is right, therefore, that from time to time, when really important changes are taking place, the broad objectives of fuel policy should be looked at again.
Developments since the fuel policy White Paper of October, 1965, have made such a review necessary now, and, as I have announced, this is now in hand. But, whatever the results of the review, it is quite certain that the demand for electricity will go on increasing and that the industry must plan to build the necessary plant to meet this growth. For this reason, I ask the House to approve the Order to raise the borrowing limits.

9.22 p.m.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: As the Minister explained, these


two Orders are designed to raise the upper limits of borrowing by the boards in both Scotland and England. In the case of England, the limit is to be raised, but not to the maximum laid down by the Act. In Scotland, on the other hand, the limit is raised by £80 million, to the limit provided for by existing legislation. Before the Under-Secretary of State arrived, I intervened to put this point to the Minister. He explained that this had been contrived in the case of England in order to give the House of Commons an opportunity to discuss the matter again before the upper limit was reached. In the case of Scotland, if the upper limit is to be reached now, this cannot apply unless some other arrangement is made.
I hope, therefore, that the Under-Secretary of State will tell us whether the point which the Minister made with reference to England will be covered in some other way with reference to Scotland. I assure him that we should like to have another opportunity to consider the question in Scotland.
In speaking to these Orders, the Minister told us of the uncertainties surrounding the programme for electricity in the future. We can only agree with him about that. If I understood him aright, he said that there would be annual reviews of the investment programme, but at the same time he implicitly paid tribute to the amazing accuracy of the forecasts which had been made about investment in 1963——

Sir G. Nabarro: And earlier.

Mr. Campbell: And earlier. In the circumstances, it was quite a triumph that they worked out fairly precisely.
We are glad of the opportunity this evening to hear the Minister's explanation of the Orders, but it is also a timely opportunity to consider the investment position of the electricity industry as a whole. There has been some comment and conjecture about the industry's investment programme in the coming years in the light of the rapidly changing situation in fuel and power supplies to which the right hon. Gentleman himself referred. Technological advance together with new discoveries have altered the picture from anything which anyone could have foreseen four or five years ago. With whatever wisdom he might

have been endowed, anyone would have needed almost supernatural powers of prophecy to foresee what has happened in the last four or five years.
One example is the discovery of the process for producing gas from oil, and producing it cheaply. The Minister and I met recently during the Recess in the north of Scotland when he was opening one of the new plants for one of these processes.
Then there is the discovery of gas and oil below the North. Sea. All these facts are lessons for planners generally. This is eminently a matter in which rigid planning for years ahead could be costly, with the investment programme being more than is needed in the event. My hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro), in an excellent speech yesterday, spoke about the effects of the discovery of oil and gas on fuel and power as a whole. I shall not go further on that because it is fresh in our memories. But, clearly, flexibility is essential for the investment programme of the electricity industry.
I was glad to hear that the right hon. Gentleman is already thinking about natural gas-fired power stations in the future. This is the kind of thing that must be thought about and, at an early stage, given the uncertainties the right hon. Gentleman referred to. In asking for higher limits for borrowing by the boards, the right hon. Gentleman should tell us more about how he foresees investment in the coming years. It seems likely that natural gas will be available (more cheaply, especially for domestic consumer requirements. Are the Government really ready for this? Are the investment plans flexible enough for such changes and also for other changes which may come about and which it is as impossible for us to foresee now as it was for others to be foreseen four or five years ago? Flexibility must be the essence of planning ahead in the fuel and power industries at the moment.
Then there was the Government's July measures to deal with the economic situation. The right hon. Gentleman touched upon this and said that the electricity industry was going to reduce by 3 per cent., mostly, if not all, on the distribution side. I was not sure whether he was


speaking about Scotland as well as England at that stage, and I ask the Under-Secretary of State to deal with this. I put a Question down about it some time ago and was told that it had not yet been worked out, along with the reductions by other nationalised industries in Scotland.
Electricity is expensive when there are heavy loads at peak periods and it is always the job of anyone in the industry to seek to spread the load over a period and to try to cut down the peak. This will not only assist—if it can be carried out—the investment programme, because less plant will be needed if one can cut down peak loads, but it will also cut the price to the consumer. Is the right hon. Gentleman doing all he can to help the campaign of the boards to encourage off-peak use of electricity?
I commend to the right hon. Gentleman's notice what has happened recently in Scotland. Upstairs in Committee, we have been considering a Scottish Bill. We on this side pressed for the derating of off-peak storage heaters. Although this was resisted at the time, I am glad to tell the House that only last week the Secretary of State for Scotland made it clear that he would accept this proposal and has himself put forward an Amendment.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Has the Standing Committee reported to the House? If not, the hon. Gentleman cannot refer to its proceedings.

Mr. Campbell: I apologise, Mr. Speaker. If I referred to the Committee it was because it was so topical in relation to the recent attitude of the Government.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman can refer to the subject but not to what has taken place upstairs unless it has been reported to the House.

Mr. Campbell: I am sorry that I made that reference, Mr. Speaker, which was not necessary to my main point, which is that it is important that the industry's campaign to assist people to use electricity at off-peak periods should be encouraged by the Government and that anything which the Government do in this direction, assisted by us, has our commendation.
I turn now to some particularly Scottish matters, and my hon. Friend the Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison) will

address himself particularly to some English matters. In Scotland we have all forms of generation of electricity, including hydro-electric. In considering this extra £80 million now to be available for investment by the boards if the Scottish Order is passed, can the Under-Secretary say what progress there has been with some of the generating stations which are nearing completion? Can he say whether the Loch Awe scheme and the Cruachan power station, which was a great engineering achievement quite apart from the generation, are finished or nearly complete? The latter was a pump storage scheme, and we would like to know whether there is any plan for further pump storage. We have heard it said that the Loch Sloy scheme is a possibility. Is this one of the schemes which the Government have in mind when considering their plans for Scotland?
The House will remember that the Secretary of State for Scotland at the end of last year turned a complete somersault on the issue of small hydro-electric schemes. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South will be interested in this. The right hon. Gentleman suspended for ten year two schemes which had been put forward. The somersault was performed because, when we were in Government and I was at the Government Despatch Box answering, he criticised us because we had set up an inquiry to see whether the schemes were economic. It is clear that wiser counsels prevailed when the right hon. Gentleman came to office and no doubt his decision was actuated by his discovery that small schemes of that kind were no longer economic or practicable.
In his speech tonight, the Minister extolled large units and said that nowadays it was economic to have large units. He spoke in terms of 2,000 megawatts. I return to the issue of pump storage. With hydro-electricity there can be a place for pumped storage, which can be used at a time of peak demand and so assist the supply position generally. Can we be told about the progress with the two coal-fired stations at Cockenzie and Longannet which were based on the use of low-grade coal on or near the site of the stations?
I turn now to nuclear generation. The station at Hunterston was opened just over two years ago—I was also present


at the opening—and appears to have made a successful contribution to the generating capacity of the South of Scotland Board. The Minister said that Britain led the world in nuclear energy. There was certainly a time then—and I hope that it is still continuing—two years ago when within that it could be said that Scotland led the world, because at that time all the electricity in Scotland at night, admittedly during the summer, was being provided entirely by nuclear power.
Last week the Secretary of State announced the consideration of a new unit at Hunterston which was described as an advanced gas cooled reactor generating station. The terms of the announcement were as follows:
Notice of the application will be published by the Board and, when the statutory procedure is completed and all relevant information is available, I shall decide whether this consent should be granted."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th October, 1966; Vol. 734, c. 183.]
It appears that the Under-Secretary of State still has to decide whether to go ahead. With the uncertainties which we have been discussing this is clearly correct, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman when he replies will say whether this is the kind of nuclear generating which has been described as a break-through at Dungeness, and whether he can tell us more about the position. Is it just an idea or has it advanced beyond that?
We hope that the Under-Secretary, when he replies, will be able to give us information on the progress of these stations, and the projects, in the light of the need for flexibility which I mentioned, related to the foreseeable demand. It is clear that in Scotland as in England, we want to see the latest and cheapest methods of generating electricity brought in at the optimum time. We know that this is difficult because a technological break-through can happen just after one has authorised some station on what was previously the latest and cheapest process. We hope that within the possible limits, the uncertainties described and the need for flexibility, the hon. Gentleman can tell us something of the progress so far and a little about future plans.

9.35 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Palmer: When we discussed last night the Bill to

give the National Coal Board powers to exploit natural gas beneath the North Sea, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) referred to me as a kind of electrical terrorist who would wish to see the gas industry liquidated if I had half a chance. I would merely say that this is an exaggeration. It is not true. I do, however, claim to be an electrical enthusiast.
As the House knows, most of my life has been spent connected with the electrical supply industry. Apart from that personal reflection may I say that the electricity supply industry has a very special relationship to the other fuel and power industries, because it is a kind of universal currency of fuel and power and the prosperity of electricity is very much bound up with the prosperity of fuel and power generally.
I do not propose to go into technical questions; I would probably be out of order, in any event. I shall address myself, as a Parliamentarian, to the Orders in front of us. The House has three duties in relation to Orders of this kind. I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) that it is a good thing that from time to time the fuel and power industries should have to come to the House to justify their expenditure and to seek more money. I do not share his view that the gap between applications should be any shorter than it is, because one cannot set exact periods and this present gap is just about right. These industries, particularly electricity, have to plan ahead. There should be some uncertainty as to whether they will get the capital, but there should not be too much.
The first duty of the House in relation to Orders of this kind is to examine the request. Here the request is to extend the borrowing powers of the electricity boards in England, Wales and Scotland. I do not think that we should be scared by the extent of the sums involved because the industry is fantastically large. It is a fundamental industry basic to the whole economy. It is expanding so rapidly that considerable sums of capital are bound to be locked up in the industry. Sometimes those large sums are not directly earning revenue for the moment. But when this sort of Order is put before the House it has a perfect right to ask certain questions.


I have listed four or five questions which I think it is proper for the House to ask.
First, is the industry earning a good return on the capital already expended? Secondly, is the industry accumulating adequate reserves from its own resources? Thirdly, is productivity rising? I think that that is a fair question because it gives a measure of the efficiency of the industry. The fourth question, which I will not go into now, is: are labour relations good? The fifth, and by no means least important, question concerns the relationship with the consumer. This industry must operate for the benefit of the community, the consumer. The question which has to be asked here is: is the price about right in relation to the general price level? Is the service good? Is the supply satisfactory and reliable? I do not propose to take time in answering every one of those questions because the figures are available in the annual reports of the electricity boards.
My right hon. Friend, in talking about the return on capital, pointed out—and it was as well that he should do so—that the expected return is 12·4 per cent. and that the actual return so far is 12·3 per cent. That is an excellent performance. He did not mention one or two other points which I propose to mention.
On productivity, this is an industry which has done very well. In 1949, when price levels were vastly different, the cost for the construction of new generating stations per kilowatt was £50. Now, in spite of the great change in prices and labour costs, it is down to £40. That is a measure of improved efficiency. On the matter of employees per megawatt, in 1957, there were nine employees. Today, there are six. When one thinks of the great changes that there have been in the average level of retail prices, it is interesting to note that in this industry the average price to consumers in 1957 was l·5d. It has gone up over the considerable period since by 0·2 of Id. It is now l·7d. When the industry comes to the House and says, "We want more money", we must in all fairness say that the record is excellent. I am speaking of the boards as a whole.
The financial return position in Scotland is not as happy as it is in the rest of the country. The South of Scotland

Board, in particular, is getting itself into difficulties.

Mr. James Dempsey: Lack of investment.

Mr. Palmer: Yes. I think that that is fair. Those who opposed in the House in 1953, as I did, the separation of the South of Scotland from the rest of the United Kingdom in the generation of electricity have been proved right by events. Remembering that that board started with excellent reserves which it inherited from the general organisation for electricity supply, I believe that a number of the financial troubles can be traced back to the separation.
There were political reasons for the separation which we cannot go into tonight. It is unlikely, however, that any Government will change it back. But the South of Scotland area is too small to have a joint generation-distribution organisation; it is not viable. A possible solution—I say possible—which might help the general financial position of both Scottish boards is their amalgamation.

Sir G. Nabarro: Hear, hear.

Mr. Palmer: Occasionally, the hon. Gentleman says something which is correct.

Sir G. Nabarro: Will the hon. Gentleman permit me to intervene?

Mr. Palmer: I shall in a moment. The hon. Member will agree that last, night he jumped up and down quite a lot, like a gilded jack-in-the-box. Perhaps he will allow me to make my final point on this aspect.
The Under-Secretary of State who is to reply on behalf of the Scottish Office should try to deal with the financial position of the South of Scotland Board. He should confirm that the board has made application to the Secretary of State for some kind of remission or relief in the amount of the return that it is expected to earn on its capital. I should like to know from him what is the attitude of the Scottish Office in respect of that request.

Sir G. Nabarro: The hon. Gentleman is a little unfair. I intervened only once in his speech yesterday. In 1955, when the Electricity Reorganisation (Scotland) Bill was going through the House, I was the only Tory Member who advocated


the amalgamation of the two boards. The whole Socialist Party was opposed to that because the North of Scotland Board, dating back to 1943, is a sacred cow of Scottish Socialists.

Mr. Palmer: If the hon. Member will look up the record he will find that he interrupted me more than once. I do not mind about it. I am not worried about it. As for the Scottish Act to which he has referred, I believe that it went through the House in 1953 and not 1955.

Sir G. Nabarro: It was 1955.

Mr. Palmer: I think that it was the 1954 Act. In any case, I had paid a tribute to him. I do not know why he is so bothered about it.
I now turn to what I regard as the second duty of the House and the nation in considering this kind of Order, namely to look at some of the grievances of the industry. The hon. Member for Worcestershire, South referred to one of the grievances. I am glad to be able to support him in this. It concerns the tax on fuel oil that the industry has to pay. I entirely agree with him that it is wrong. This question has been raised on many occasions, both with Ministers of Power and Chancellors of the Excheuer of this and previous Governments, but nothing has been done about it. The industry feels that it is time that something was done about it. The electricity supply industry has a perfect right to ask for fair treatment compared to its rivals. Fuel taxation and fair access to other primary fuels should also be considered.
This point was raised last night, when we discussed natural gas. I hope that my right hon. Friend will not too easily take the view that the electricity industry must be subordinated to the gas industry. The two should have impartial treatment in access to natural gas. There is a long established relationship between the coal industry and the electricity supply industry, but, of course, at the moment the latter supports the former beyond the limit to which it would wish to go if free to follow its own commercial judgment.
It is generally felt in the electricity industry that if a subsidy must be paid to any industry it is right that it should come out of general taxation and not be paid by the electricity consumer——

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Hear, hear.

Mr. Palmer: I am glad to have the assent of the hon. Gentleman.
A further substantial grievance in the electricity industry which should be considered is that it is expected to return 12·4 per cent. on its investment, whereas the figure for the gas industry is only 9 or 10 per cent. This was done deliberately some years ago, presumably because it was felt that the electricity industry was in a better and stronger position to pay and that the gas industry had to be encouraged. But surely, if there is to be a realistic fuel and power policy, this should now be revised.
Another important issue for electricity supply is that the industry is expected to give a reliable supply, but often, since the war it has been kept short of capital to provide the necessary capacity. Much evidence on this point was given to the Select Committee on the Nationalised Industries, on which I serve and whose Report is available. The Chairman of the Electricity Council, Sir Ronald Edwards, told the Committee that when there is a fuel crisis, a shortage of fuels generally and very severe weather, if coal cannot be delivered, if the gas supply fails and the oil tankers do not get through, people turn out their spare electric radiators in their lofts and lumber rooms and plug them in. So the electricity industry is always uncomfortably placed when other fuel industries fail.
However, apart from having to maintain a domestic supply, which can be very peaky indeed, the electricity industry has a special relationship to the growth of national productivity and the general prosperity of industry. This is a point which I made in a supplementary question to my right hon. Friend with some force a little time ago—that it is absolute folly to propose cutting back capital expenditure of the electricity industry, as in the long run such action will be regretted.
Critics of the industry have talked for years about the possibility of the load curve of growth flattening out. This has happened in no other industrial country and I am certain that it will not happen here. When my right hon. Friend, no doubt under pressure from the Treasury, asks the electricity supply industry to look at its capital expenditure, I hope that he will not take this too far. I hope


that he will act instead as a defender of the industry against the Treasury. It is all very easy to say that the cuts are not in generating capacity but in distribution, but in the long run there is an absolute relationship between generation capacity and distribution capacity; we cannot separate the two.
We in the House are representatives of the shareholders in this industry and we should look at industry in that spirit. Our third duty, therefore, is to point out to the industry where it fails; whether it fails in whole or in part. There are a number of points which I could make. Some I have made in the past and some I hope to make in the future. In particular, they concern questions of publicity and of organisation and, particularly, the neglect by the industry in relation to the development of the industrial load. But because of the nature of the Order and the lateness of the hour, I intend to spare the House my reflections on that subject at this stage.
I feel that I have said enough to justify claiming that the industry has a right to ask for this capital and, on its record a right to have it approved by the House. Very soon the nationalised industry will come of age. It will be 21 years since the first nationalisation Act. I wish, in a bipartisan spirit for once, perhaps, to say that the two major parties in the House have contributed a great deal to the improvement of the organisation of this industry. The 1947 Act brought in a new era, although the principles of public ownership were already established in the industry. The 1957 Act in the main brought about a necessary reorganisation; it was introduced by the then Conservative Government. We did not, on this side, oppose that Act in principle.
Together both parties have therefore contributed to the improvement of the organisation and the success of this great industry. It has become very much a school of social management, because industrial management in an industry of this kind, with public accountability very much to the fore, is an art in itself. The engineers, managers and employees in the industry have well justified the trust which has been placed in them. I hope that the House will approve the Order.

9.58 p.m.

Earl of Dalkeith: We are dealing with Orders which involve very considerable sums of money and it is right that questions should be asked before we pass them. I was particularly interested in the speech of the hon. Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer), which raised some very objective questions, and I look forward to hearing the answers.
I understand that in Scotland the Government are seeking powers to raise the borrowing to its maximum figure. As my hon. Friend the Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. G. Campbell) said, this seems to mean that this will be the last opportunity which we shall have for discussing what is to happen north of the Border in expenditure on electricity, whereas in England, I gather, there will be another opportunity.
I cannot help reflecting on the Government's wisdom in arranging the debate at the beginning of winter rather than at the end of it, and, from the point of view of the comfort of the population, I hope that the Minister will look as cheerful and as self-confident in March and April as he appears to look now. I was encouraged when I heard that the coal stocks, which were threatened at the time of the seamen's strike, are now at a good level, and I am sure that hon. Members would like to join in paying tribute to all those involved in the industry who have made this possible. At one time—I remember asking a Question during the summer—it looked as though there might be very great difficulties in stocking up supplies, particularly in the South of England.
I would like to ask one or two questions concerning planning and forecasting. I am a forester by trade and, therefore, I am accustomed to planning in terms of 60 to 80 years and I regard anything less as inadequate. Perhaps, therefore, I am not entirely at one with my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) in this regard. I was pleased to hear the tribute paid to the previous Administration for making such accurate forecasts in 1963 in relation to the results achieved to date.
As to forecasting, I understand that the Government are working on the basis of a


9 per cent. growth rate in Scotland and a rate of growth of 8 per cent. in England. I assume that this growth is likely to be projected in the years to come in accordance with the National Plan. I should like the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, when he replies to the debate, to say whether the present economic setback from which we are suffering will have any marked effect upon that rate of growth.
A related question is whether the hon. Gentleman can tell us what proportion of the total planned investment will be financed from the industry's own resources. From the speech by the Minister, I was encouraged to hear that there has been a return of about 12·3 per cent. on investments which have been made. This shows that the industry is in a fairly sound state.
In connection with the use of various forms of fuel to generate electricity, I should like to know from the Under-Secretary whether either of the two Scottish boards will be using the liquefied gas which is being imported by ship. I understand that the Scottish Gas Board is doing this. It seems to me that this is an alternative form of fuel the use of which might be examined.
Another question arising from the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. G. Campbell) concerns the nuclear reactor at Hunter-ston, where there has been mention of a new plant being added to the existing one. I would like to know whether this has been budgeted for and whether the cost of this will come out of the money which the Government are tonight asking us to grant.
A very important point in all this is the interest of the consumer, to which the hon. Member for Bristol, Central referred. Considering that electricity is a nationalised industry—not so much perhaps for that reason, but because it is a monopoly industry—it has a surprisingly good record of relations with consumers. This reflects great credit on the individuals concerned. It is, however, something about which we should never become in the least complacent and I hope the Government will pay strict attention to this aspect.

10.4 p.m.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: I would like to say a few things, particularly about the South of Scotland Electricity Board, along the lines mentioned by the hon. Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer) in his interesting and informative speech. The Minister's approach in coming forward with the Scottish Order was in his usual pleasant, non-controversial and very uninformative manner. When we consider that for Scotland the right hon. Gentleman is asking seeking power to spend an extra £80 million, I consider that the information which he has given is inadequate and that there are certain questions which should be answered straight away.
First of all, can the Minister give a clear indication of the extent to which the South of Scotland Electricity Board is in financial difficulties at present? We know that under the present organisation of the electricity industry the South of Scotland Board comes under the Secretary of State for Scotland, whereas the English boards come under the Minister of Power. This devolution is all very well in principle as long as some benefits accrue from it, but to me as an individual it seems that we are obtaining no benefit at all from the separate control of the Board, and there are some serious disadvantages.
An example is the rating of the various boards compared with the situation in Scotland, where it is believed generally by people in the supply industry that the division of rating costs amongst the various boards has resulted in the South of Scotland Board paying what amounts to an extra £¾ million in relation to the proportion paid by the various boards for local rates. The Board pays £2·81 million to the Secretary of State for Scotland to be distributed to the various local authorities for local rates. It believes that the formula under which it pays this money is so disadvantageous that for several years it has been paying about £¾ million too much. It wants to know precisely who is doing something about it.
I suggest that if the organisation had been under one Ministry, this kind of problem would have been faced a long time ago. That is not just my view. The annual report of the S.S.E.B. published this year asks what is being done about this programme. We know that new arrangements are coming forward in the


Local Government (Scotland) Bill, but will that Measure deal with this point.
There is also the question of the basic costs of the S.S.E.B. About 40 per cent. of all its costs are fuel costs—what it pays for coal and other fuels in order to produce the electricity. The S.S.E.B. pays very much more for its coal than do the board in England and Wales. In fact, the difference is so substantial that reference was made to it in the S.S.E.B. report, from which I should like to read two short sentences:
As mentioned in the previous Report, the Council "—
that is, the Consultative Council:
are critical of the National Coal Board's policy of charging substantially more for coal in Scotland than in England. The differentials in coal prices have been a matter of continuing concern…and the Council are most disturbed and disappointed to hear that as from 1st April, 1966, the National Coal Board had decided to increase the surcharge "——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must link what he has to say with the Order we have before us. We are not discussing coal at the moment.

Mr. Taylor: I was not intending to discuss coal, Mr. Speaker. I was trying to point out that before this sum of £80 million is granted we should have some indication whether there is to be continuity in the cost of fuels for the various electricity boards. This is a decision that the Minister of Power should make before we approve the granting of such a substantial sum which, in Scotland, is to cover the cost for three years. This is the kind of decision we must have from the Ministries before we approve capital spending to carry the boards forward three years. I shall not dwell on the point, but I hope that it is in order to refer briefly to it.
The surcharge increase on 1st April was one of 5s. a ton. Fuel represents 40 per sent. of the costs of the S.S.E.B. and we find a situation in which the Board appears to be penalised because of the very substantial difference in the price of basic fuel coming from another organisation under the control of the Ministry of Power. On previous occasions I have drawn attention to the differential in the prices of various commodities of the nationalised industries and in almost every case there is a factor operating against the interests of Scotland. But the Secretary of State has said that in

this case, as an exception, Scotland gets a fair deal.
I took the opportunity to get in touch with two shipyards, one very near if not next to the constituency of the hon. Gentleman, and the other in the North of England. I put the question to them, "What is the electricity cost in an average ship?" In Scotland, the average charge was l·535d. per unit, in England 1·313d. The differential cost in the construction of a small ship is £5,000 and it is over £12,000 for larger ships.
It is all very well to talk of current prices, but the Secretary of State knows that we had a substantial increase which was held up by the freeze. I should like to know what is to happen about that increase once the thaw comes. Are we to have the increase at the end of the freeze? I do not think that is at all likely. I think there will be an even greater increase. What is the sense in holding up a price increase during a time when we are having a so-called freeze and at the end of the period having a more substantial increase? I should like to know precisely what is the relationship of the S.S.E.B. with the Secretary of State and what alterations are envisaged. I should like to know why we cannot have an indication that that is being done by the Secretary of State to protect the S.S.E.B. from unreasonably high fuel and rates charges.
Before we approve this expenditure we should like to know what the Government have in mind about capital expenditure. It is an alarming situation that we seem to have stopped all proposed capital schemes in the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board and in the South of Scotland Electricity Board we are not sure of the plans for capital investment. I keep in touch with some firms undertaking very large projects for the Central Electricity Generating Board. They tell me that they have plenty of work at present and some of the projects are very large, but looking to the future they find that new contracts are not coming forward for the stations which will be built in four or five years' time. We should like to know what contracts have been approved, how many for next year and so on, because unless there can be continuity on the capital programme there will be a grim outlook for these services.
Another point of significance is that the emphasis appears to be going from


hydro-electric power. There have been no schemes approved for the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board for what is by far the cheapest way of producing electric power. In the South of Scotland Electricity Board Report we see that the cost of getting electricity from coal-fired stations is ·905d. a unit, from nuclear stations it is just over 1d. a unit and from the Hydro-Electric Board it is about ·189d., about one-sixth of that coming from the nuclear stations. We want a clear indication of whether emphasis is to be on capital projects and whether there will be further hydro-electric stations.

Sir G. Nabarro: Does my hon. Friend realise that what these Orders are about is capital investment? He is quoting comparative costs per unit of electricity generated from hydro-electric stations and coal-fired stations. The fact is that the capital cost of hydro-electric stations is vastly greater than that of coal-fired stations.

Mr. Taylor: I am well aware of my hon. Friend's knowledge in this matter, but when there is a differentiation of this kind in the running cost a considerably greater capital expenditure on the stations would be justified. I know my hon. Friend's interest in and love for Scotland will make it possible for him to support the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board continuing to make a contribution to our national economy.
There are two other small points on which I should like to have some clarification before we approve this extra borrowing power. This may be the last opportunity we will have for raising this matter affecting Scotland for a period of three or more years. There is the question of what we are to do with consumers, of whom a large number will be forced to have electricity because they are moving into a small number of multi-storey houses which the Government are now building in Scotland. These houses have under-floor heating and a substantial number of consumers are being forced to accept this method as the only means of heating their homes. Their electricity bills are extremely high.
As this change is taking place we find that the South of Scotland Electricity Board has decided that no more pre-payment meters will be

installed. Many of the older people in these houses are having heavy bills to pay and are finding great difficulty in paying them. They are having more difficulty under this new system than under the old system of pre-payment meters. The South of Scotland Electricity Board officials have been very helpful in my discussions with them, and they have agreed, in particuluar cases of hardship, to look into the possibility of installing pre-payment meters.
We know the serious danger of vandalism. The problem of vandalism and the robbing of meters were never as great as they are in multi-storey houses, and it is in this type of house that we have this under-floor heating. I should like the Under-Secretary to indicate if he will view sympathetically the installing of prepayment meters in multi-storey houses which have under-floor heating, where heating bills are substantial and cause hardship to the occupants.
My final point is on the important question of organisation. There is room for more devolution in many aspects of Government control in our two nations. Here is a case of devolution where we have the Scottish Office controlling the S.S.E.B. and the Ministry of Power controlling the other boards. I cannot see what possible benefit we get from this arrangement. There are many substantial problems continuing in Scotland, and if we had the Ministry of Power taking an interest in us, we would have far greater continuity and interest.
Why is it that the Secretary of State for Scotland has not made stronger representations to get equality on fuel charges? It costs more for the S.S.E.B. to buy fuel than it does similar boards in other areas. Why has not something been done about the rates? This is one of the many tasks for which the Secretary of State is responsible, and we are not receiving the kind of attention which should be given to such an industry.
Apart from that, if all the boards were under one Ministry there would be the possibility of harmonising the prices charged by all the boards. As it is a nationalised industry, I cannot see the real justification for having such a wide differential in prices charged by a nationalised undertaking. If we gained on one side what we lost on the other,


then it would be all right. If we had cheaper gas and dearer coal, so what? But this seems to act against Scotland in almost every single aspect, and before we approve this substantial increase in borrowing powers I should like to know whether the Government are thinking about this question of having the same charge for coal, for gas, for electricity and for other forms of power in every

part of the United Kingdom, whether it is London, Manchester, Birmingham, Edinburgh, or John o'Groats.
This would be justice and, in view of Scotland's present economic difficulties it would be a real help and it would help to stem the flood of migration which is becoming so serious that even the Secretary of State has noticed it.

10.19 p.m.

Sir Gerald Nabarro: Mr. Speaker, a predecessor of yours observed on one occasion when I was being singularly fractious during a Scottish electricity debate, that the Border had been crossed both ways more than once. This evening, the three speakers so far from this side of the House have all been Scots. I am the first Sassenach to speak. I draw attention to the fact, Mr. Speaker, that the two Orders are concerned with capital investment for the future and are overwhelmingly concerned with investment in England and Wales. Scotland is relatively a small minority.

Mr. Speaker: I am certain that the hon. Gentleman does not wish to criticise the selection of orators by Mr. Speaker.

Sir G. Nabarro: Certainly not, Sir. I am merely observing that three Scots have spoken. That is no criticism of the Chair, implied or otherwise.
I am the first Sassenach to speak. As these Orders are overwhelmingly concerned with Sassenach investment, I am pleased to be able to speak upon them. They are seven-eighths investment in England and Wales, and very large sums of money are involved. I do not disparage the Scots by saying that.
The limit for electricity borrowing—that is, the aggregation of the Electricity Council, the Central Electricity Generating Board, and the area boards in England and Wales—was £3,300 million under existing legislation. These Orders raise that figure, surprisingly, not to the limit of the legislative enactment of some years ago of £4,400 million, but only to £4,100 million. I thought that the Minister of Power made a mistake when he said that £2,867 had been appropriated up to 31st March last. My information is that the correct figure is £2,875.
I think that the Minister of Power made a further mistake in his assessment that this investment would last until March, 1969; that is, about two and a half years ahead. I think not. I think that it will run out a good deal before then, for the very good reason that the investment in England and Wales in massive additional generating plant originated by Tory Governments prior

to 1964, and quite largely nuclear plant, will run at its peak 18 months' hence in the installation of the mammoth figure of 6,000 megawatts of new generating capacity in a single year—1968—and in 1969 the figure will drop very sharply to 2,000 megawatts installed. In other words, we reach a very high figure and then come down sharply. The highest level of electricity generating investment ever know in this nation is during the period of the next two years.
Here I pause to say something about the scale of this investment. It is notorious that electricity corporations the world over, whether publicly or privately owned, have to draw their moneys for new investment from three sources: first, the surplus or the profit they earn in the course of their operations; secondly, their depreciation account annually; and, thirdly, by borrowing new money.
In the nation's present economic condition it is very important that the maximum contribution to new investment in electricity should come from the first two of those sources—that is, from the surplus earned, first, and from the depreciation account, second—in order to lighten as greatly as possible the burden put on new borrowing at a time when money for new investment is the most valuable single commodity in demand in this country.
The pressure for new investment from public and private sources is eternally and continuously above our resources. I am glad to see the Parliamentary Secretary nodding assent. The most expensive single form of investment, public or private, is electricity generation for the future. Perhaps I might underline that by quoting the scale of this investment, postulated for the next year or two in an official publication "Public Expenditure: Planning and Control". Cmnd. 2915. It says in Table 5 that the 1964–65 actual outturn of new investment for electricity was £572 million. For 1965–66—that is, the year to last 31st March—it was estimated at £624 million and for 1966–67 £695 million. That is bigger than all the other public corporations put together, in a single year.
I do not quarrel with it. Were I the Minister I would be doing substantially the same thing. But I am asking the right hon. Gentleman to examine the quality of this investment for, as I endeavoured to


put to the House yesterday in another context, that of oil and gas under the North Sea, the word "investment" has become almost a sacred cow on both sides of the House in the past few years. But the monetary expression of investment means nothing. For comparative or other purposes what matters is the quality of the investment.
I give the House in the context of the most expensive form of public investment the four desiderata that I consider should be applied to electricity investment, and I hope that the Minister replying will endorse that this is in fact being done in the matter of the huge sum called for under the Orders. The first is that for every million pounds invested there should be the maximum energy provision. That is why I pause to quarrel with my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) who compared hydro-electric power with power from coal-fired stations north of the Border in terms of cost per unit generated. That is entirely fallacious. What he should have done was to say that the cost per kilowatt installed for a hydroelectric station is about four times as great as the capital cost in a coal-fired station. It is approximately £160 per kilowatt installed for water power, excluding pump storage, which is much cheaper and much more economic, whereas working on 500 mW sets of the most modern kind installed in coal-fired stations the cost is less than £40 per kW installed. In conditions of extreme stringency of moneys for capital investment, that is the critical factor. That is the first of my desiderata—maximum energy provision per £1 million vested.
The second is the maximum conservation of capital resources. I have underlined that point in a reference north of the Border, but it applies equally to construction plans for power stations south of the Border. The third is the maximum return for capital vested, and while I do not wish to join in paeans of praise for the electricity authority in the matter of the return on capital vested I do praise Sir Christopher Hinton, as he then was, and his successor, Professor Sir Ronald Edwards, the present Chairman of the Electricity Council, for maintaining a high level of returns on the capital vested. The fourth and last of my desiderata is

the lowest economic price per unit of electricity supplied.
Having set down those broad principles in the form of four desiderata, I say a word now about a different aspect of the problem, to which the Minister referred, as the uncertainty of the future. The figures in these Orders are, presumably, based on a certain postulated rate of economic growth. Electricity generation is the reflex of a country's prosperity. On what have these mammoth figures been based? I hope that we shall have a straight and unequivocal answer to that question. It is most important that we have it. I shall not vote against the Orders, because I could not be guilty of denying this industry capital money supplies, but I want an assurance on this point.
Have these large additional capital sums in the Orders been related to the postulated rate of economic growth enunciated in the National Plan of July, 1965, a rate of growth of 3·8 per cent. per annum? If not upon that rate, upon what rate of economic growth have the figures been based? I hope that the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon), will give me an unequivocal reply to that question. If he cannot do so this evening, because this is really the Minister of Power's responsibility, not that of a Scottish junior Minister, I hope that the Minister of Power will at least write to me or publicise the answer.

Mr. Marsh: I referred to this in my speech. I said that everybody accepts that the figure now given in the National Plan is not a figure upon which one can base oneself. This is one of the uncertainties as to what the future estimated rate of growth will be which I dealt with in my speech.

Sir G. Nabarro: But that is not the point. If these figures are not related to the 3·8 per cent. rate of growth in the National Plan, to what figure of economic growth are they related? Unless we can ascertain the rate of economic growth, we have no means of ascertaining whether these figures for electricity investment in the next few years are correct. I must, therefore, press the hon. Gentleman for a much better answer than the one given by the right hon. Gentleman.
During the first five years of the 1960s, the rate of electricity growth was 8·6 percent.


per annum. It is supposed, according to the electricity authority, that the rate of growth will be 8·2 per cent. per annum for the remainder of the 1960s. It is roughly the same in the second five years of the decade as in the first. But I am not sure about that one. I think that Professor Sir Ronald Edwards is wrong in his assessment, in view of what has happened with Government policy during the last few weeks.
The electricity authority always makes certain that Members of Parliament are well briefed. It always ensures that the explanatory memoranda about electricity investment descend on Members a day or two before the debate. The House should have before it this quotation, which comes from "Electricity—Progress and Plans" published by the Electricity Council in October, 1966. It is on page 17:
As mentioned in the Foreword to this booklet, it will shortly be necessary to seek Parliament's approval to increase the present interim limit on borrowing of £3,300 million to the maximum of £4,400 million fixed by the Electricity and Gas Act, 1963. In the Electricity Council's report for the year 1962–63, which preceded the passage of that Act through Parliament, it was estimated that a £4,400 million limit would cover the industry's requirements up to about 31st March, 1970. It was pointed out, however, that the forecast could only be approximate. The current view, again tentative, would not suggest that the statutory borrowing limit will be reached earlier than this, and might be somewhat later. This, however, depends inter alia on the financial objectives to be set by the Government for the ensuing quinquennium, and the extent to which the National Plan is achieved, which in turn will affect electricity sales, income and costs".
From page 13 I quote:
It must be emphasised that if the National Plan is varied then the demand forecast for the supply industry will be varied, too.
As the economy is now stagnant, and is likely to remain stagnant for at least 12 months, as the rate of output of British industry in 1967 and perhaps in 1968 is likely to be lower than in 1966, I believe that the right hon. Gentleman has exaggerated the money requirements of the electricity industry in these Orders tonight. He is over-providing for future plant, which will not be matched by the national rate of growth of production and productivity.
I arrive at those conclusions simply from reading all the documents available to me and based on the assumption,

which I believe is correct, that these monetary figures, the financial investment figures in these two Orders, were drafted and agreed between the electricity industry and the Ministry of Power before the Prime Minister's statement on 20th July, and have not been adjusted for the future in the experience of the stagnation which has now descended on us, and the likelihood of falling production during the next two years.
I conclude with these comments. I am not alone in this prognosis this evening. I am listened to by a Socialist opposite in complete silence. I have been waiting to be interrupted at 10-second intervals. Nothing has been said to me about my arguments.

Mr. Russell Kerr: Giving the hon. Member a night off.

Sir G. Nabarro: Giving me a night off, the hon. Member says. I am enjoying a night on.
But I am not alone in this view and this prognosis of the future, in the matter of the electricity industry, and it is no laughing matter when hundreds of millions of pounds of national investment are involved, a substantial part of which could have been turned to very much better effect than in the electricity industry, where perhaps the additional power may not be wanted. This was written in the Financial Times of 1st September, 1966, under the heading, "Generating plant in the 1970s: A trough or a slump?" The opening passage I quote:
At the beginning of this year we suggested, in a survey of the investment programme of the Central Electricity Generating Board, that it was not likely that the very high rate of expansion now in hand could be maintained. Since that time no new orders for generating plant have been placed. Economic expansion has ground to a virtual halt; discoveries of natural gas have started a new debate on national energy policy, and there have been a number of suggestions that the current investment programme in electricity is over-blown, especially at a time of economic stringency.
That is expressing in different terms the case I have endeavoured to put to the House this evening. I hope I have not been guilty of gloom about the future. I do not want to see, for political or partisan purposes, the economy of Britain grind to a halt, or remain static or stagnant. I wish to see a steady rate of growth. I repeat, electricity generation


and supply is the reflex of the prosperity of our country. I do not want to see hold-ups in the winter time, or shut downs of plant, freeze-ups, as they are called, load shedding or the remainder. I want to see the 14 to 17 per cent. margin in generating capacity which has been referred to earlier in this debate. But I feel that, in view of the huge sums of money involved, there is a real danger, in the amendments being allocated by these Orders to future investment in the electricity, that we may be overproviding, unless the economy starts at a very early date to grow again. That was the purpose of my intervention in the right hon. Gentleman's speech, when he so courteously gave way to me—not on the matter of the oil, but on the matter of the frequency with which we look at these matters.
We shall not be able to look at electricity investment again for two or three years under these Orders unless we have a "nationalisation day" for debating gas and electricity or unless the Opposition choose this topic for one of their Supply days—and I shall urge them to do so. For years, when I sat on that side of the House, from 1951 onwards, two or three times a year I urged on Conservative Ministers to allow annual examination under Statutory Instrument of the investment programmes of every one of the nationalised industries, notably electricity.
To go for 2½ years until March, 1969, before we can look at this matter again is, in my judgment, too long and I hope, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman will take my point and endeavour to furnish an earlier opportunity for it to be re-examined, albeit to prove my prognosis tonight wrong. I should not demur if he did prove it wrong. I should be happy, in fact. If I am proved wrong in my prognosis, it will mean that the national economy will indeed have begun to grow again at the rate we all desire to see it grow.

10.41 p.m.

Mr. Michael Alison: The right hon. Gentleman will agree that we have had a friendly and constructive debate so far, perhaps slightly different from that of yesterday. It has also ranged fairly widely and it has included a good deal of English as well as Scottish business. I hope that the Under-Secretary of

State for Scotland will be able to cast his net sufficiently wide to catch all the fish not only from Scotland but from England that have been swimming about in the debate.
We would like to associate ourselves with what the right hon. Gentleman said about the debt we owe to the electricity industry. We take it for granted, perhaps. We are absolutely dependent upon it. We only really look at it when something goes wrong, which is rare.
We also express considerable relief at the undertaking the right hon. Gentleman has given, and implied by the limit he has set on the Order, that we shall have a chance of looking at this matter again in the fairly near future before the final limit is topped up. This is not only because we question the borrowing limits, but because of the enormous sums of money involved. The Minister has taken a pragmatic and practical and, perhaps, quite short-term look at the future of the industry on the basis of what he described as uncertainty.
My hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro), in referring to these enormous figures, quoted from the White Paper on Public Expenditure, Planning and Control. What struck my imagination was the fact that investment by the electricity industry in an average year has been equivalent of half the total investment of private manufacturing industry. What is disturbing about this is that it is a colossal swinging movement almost impossible to stop once under way. It is like a ship broken adrift from its moorings in harbour. Once it has started to move it is difficult to correct over a five year period.
We have misgivings about the Government's judgment of the future demand for electricity. These misgivings quite naturally and properly arise from the figures given in the National Plan. I do not want to make any comments about the down turn in demand which is associated with the present freeze. I am thinking of something rather more long-term. I remind the Minister that page 42 of the second part of the Plan quite explicitly states that the industry expects the rate of increase in sales in the six years up to 1970 to be rather greater than in the period 1960–64. My information is that the rate of increase in 1965–66 over 1964–65 has actually gone down. This is the


first base year of the trend in which it was expected to increase at a greater rate. For that to have happened already is significant, and it obviously has nothing to do with the freeze, because the year relates to a period before the freeze began.
We also read that sales to domestic consumers are expected to increase at an average annual rate somewhat lower. This is obviously borne out by some of the things said by the Minister and by the trends which we are facing, but the phrase was "an increase at a rate lower", and the information which I have is that in 1965 total consumption for homes and farms was actually down on the year.
It is very striking if even before the present economic squeeze arrived the whole prognosis of the five-year plan was out to this extent in its first base year, which means that we have to be extremely careful. We certainly share the uncertainty to which the right hon. Gentleman referred.

Mr. Palmer: Is not this a very dangerous doctrine? The history of electricity supply and its expansion over many generations now, in good times and bad, shows that there is an almost straight line relationship which has not varied in any industrial country.

Mr. Alison: I shall hope to show that there is a certain imbalance between the trend of domestic electricity consumption in this country as compared with certain other European countries, and this is where certain readjustment may be necessary in the coming years.
I want to mention the obvious explanation for this trend. I am sorry to have to say this in the presence of the hon. Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer), whose praises of the electricity supply industry we understand and echo, and whom we recognise to be a champion of the industry. However, we have to face the fact that there is nibbling at our present electricity supply situation a tendency for gas consumption to increase.
It is a very striking fact that in the two years 1964–65 and 1965–66 the rate of expansion of gas sales has been greater than that of electricity. Furthermore, this has happened at a time when net production costs of gas have been about l0d. a therm and when they are likely to go

down possibly to half of that when the North Sea gas field gets under way. But, even before the North Sea gas has been exploited, we find this marked swing to gas. It may be just a fashion, but it has happened already. It is no wonder that some people are saying that the use of electricity as a major source of home heat is doomed in the long run. That statement may be exaggerated, but it is extremely important to ponder and weigh and evaluate if we are to get right this colossal sum of capital expenditure in the next few years.
I want briefly to refer to the comparison between ourselves and certain European countries. I have seen some figures and read some articles recently which have given the impression that this country is what might be described as over-electrified in terms of domestic sales as compared with certain European countries. It is striking that in France, Germany, Italy and the Netherlands, a smaller country, the relationship between domestic sales and industrial sales is as low as one quarter, that is to say, the non-industrial use of electricity is only one quarter of the industrial use, whereas in the country it is three quarters, a staggering imbalance between ourselves and the Continent of Europe.
To look at the German figure, which is probably the interesting one, because they are competitors, we find that in Germany, in terms of millions of units, industry for the year 1963—and this is an O.E.C.D. figure—consumed 86,000 million units, while domestic use was only 18,000 million units. In the case of the United Kingdom, the industrial use was a bit lower, about 70,000 odd units, but the domestic use was over twice as much.
It cannot really be claimed that this country is twice as cold or twice as exposed to Alpine and other winds as Germany, yet the fact is that this domestic market for electricity has grown out of all proportion as compared with Europe in recent years. This is one reason why industrial users in this country complain that in comparison with their European competitors they are paying more for electricity. This is crucially important, having regard to the future of the steel industry, for example, with which the Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister are concerned in another contest.


Industrial users feel that they have got the thin end of the wedge in this country because in some ways domestic users have been given an enormous priority, which may be very good but which will have bad industrial effects. If, as we rather suspect, there is going to be a marked swing away from domestic electricity consumption, partly because of the sort of imbalance that I have suggested between ourselves and the Europeans and partly because of the advant of gas, what future, industrially, is there for the electricity supply industry? Is the future there as rosy as it has been in the past for domestic consumption?
We want the Minister to tell us what the future is for the industrial use of electricity, having regard to the present run-down in the industry. Has this been taken into account seriously, and will he also bear in mind that the National Plan figure for the likely demand of electricity consumption is based upon a different growth rate to that given in the National Plan? The industry was originally asked, in making its estimates, to assume that the consumers' expenditure would rise at an average of 2·7 per cent. per annum. The implication of increasing that figure to 3·2 per cent. The National Plan forecast was not considered at the time of the National Plan, so the plan figure is misleading in this respect.
We want the Minister's estimate of the use of electricity in the light of the run down in the industry. We also want him to reassure us about the technological changes which are going on in industry. I had an instance brought to my attention the other day of a private steel company—I do not know how much longer this will be possible—dissatisfied with the industrial tariff that it was paying for electricity, positively going into the development of the fuel-oxygen scrap process in order to avoid the electricity charge. This is something which is going to be opened up with the advent of gas, oil and other similar steel-making technologies coming forward. We ought to remember that the steel industry is the electricity supply industry's best industrial customer.
If there is to be a marked swing away from electricity in steel-making and at the same time a marked swing away from electricity in domestic consumption, then

the hon. Member for Bristol, Central and others who have the electricity industry at heart will find that they are in a slightly defensive position.

Mr. Palmer: Surely the moral is not that we should cut back on the domestic use of electricity, which adds to our amenity and comfort, but rather that we should step up investment in the use of electricity in industry?

Mr. Alison: I would feel that there was at least a valid argument for restraining domestic consumption in view of the impact this has upon peak demand and the cost level, but I would feel much more sympathy with the hon. Member's point about the moving of the tax burden away from a particular area which the electricity industry is going to use, namely oil, and spreading it over the whole tax base. This is a positive proposal which will encourage industry to maintain its present favourable disposition towards electricity.
Although it is rather short notice, I should like the Under-Secretary of State to deal with comments on industrial users' own generation of electricity. This is substantial—10 per cent. Will this be encouraged? Will they continue to make electricity on a growing scale? It is an enormous volume of electricity. Where does it fit into the picture? The big customers of the electricity supply industry will be industrial users. What is to be the scope allowed to them to generate their own electricity?
I re-emphasise the point made by the hon. Member for Bristol, Central about spreading the tax burden, and I ask the Minister seriously to consider encouraging the electricity supply industry to look again at the question of a special consumer tariff for big industrial users. This will be worth looking at if there is to be a swing away from domestic use.
I should like to say a few words about the problem of peak demand, which is vitally important. It imposes a substantial cost burden upon the industry in having to bring in old plant to meet the peak demand. May we have an assurance that consideration will be given to the fact that there are some traditional uses for electricity for which gas can be used? I am thinking, in particular, of air conditioning, which hitherto has been largely electric and certainly is electric


in the United States. If we could have gas used for air conditioning, it would mean a big improvement in the domestic use of power in the coming decade.
May we have an assurance that every effort will be made to meet the peak demand out of gas generation sets? In looking at the problems of oil, gas and electricity, one of the most striking things I remember was on Das Island in the Arabian Gulf where B.P. have a huge off-shore rig. They burn off more surplus gas, they tell me, than is obtained from the whole of the North Sea find, and they supply all their own power from a small compact generator. May we have more of these?
I ask the Minister to look ahead to the Channel Tunnel, even though it may seem irrelevant at this stage. Some thought should be given to the possibility of including a pumped storage scheme of some kind in the work, in view of the enormous capital development and investment involved in digging under the sea in a tidal situation. Is there no possibility at all of making use of these underwater tunnelling operations? Is there no possibility of a pumped storage scheme, possibly involving natural gas, with the ebb and flow of sea water through propeller turbines? The French know all about this—they have their scheme at Rance and they would be only too delighted to collaborate.
The Under-Secretary of State has many diverse power topics to which he must address his mind. This is a debate in which we are discussing an enormous volume of capital for the electricity supply industry. I hope that he will comment on some of the points which have been raised.

10.58 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Dr. J. Dickson Mabon): First, may I congratulate the hon. Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison) on his appearance at the Dispatch Box? I do not know whether it was his first appearance there, but I congratulate him on what he said and on his appearance at the Box. We all remember his predecessor in the constituency with affection; those who were interested in shipbuilding and shipping know how dedicated he was to the interests of those industries. The hon. Member is showing the same conscientious

endeavour as his predecessor in these matters.
I agree that I have much to seek to answer tonight, and I do not pretend for a moment that I can cover all the points, possibly not even all the major points, raised in the debate. I shall try earnestly to deal with as many as I can.
On behalf of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Power, I would say that not all contributors to the debate took in all that he said in his opening remarks. My right hon. Friend made a short but concise and deliberate speech, and I hope that hon. Members will do him the courtesy of reading the report of it, because it contained a great deal of information, and some hon. Members in their speeches asked me to confirm, reaffirm or recite some of this information. I do not propose to do that. I have much more to do than that.
I should like to take, first, the principal point raised by the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. G. Campbell) concerning the difference between the Scottish and English position in relation to these figures. The limit of £580 million for which approval is now being asked should, we think, last until March, 1969.
I accept the point made by the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro), who made an admirable speech. I tried hard to find points of disagreement, but it was not easy to find them. I take the point made by the hon. Member that we might be wrong in this, although to date we have been right and the party opposite can take some satisfaction for that. It does not necessarily follow that in later years these estimates made some time ago will still be right. The hon. Member for Worcestershire, South is right in reminding us of this. Hence the need for the review on which my right hon. Friend has embarked and about which, I am sure, we would all like to hear at the appropriate time when it is complete.
The £580 million for which approval is now being asked for Scotland should, we think, last until March, 1969. This is roughly the same as the time for which the new interim limit for England and Wales would seem to last. This was confirmed by my right hon. Friend. In that event, of course, legislation would certainly be needed to extend the limit in Scotland. That would mean that the


House would have another opportunity of reviewing the position in Scotland—or, if not in Scotland, certainly in England, but I would be surprised if that were not the case for both countries—within about two years. I take the point made by the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South that perhaps we should debate these matters a little more often. This is entirely a matter for the usual channels to resolve in their normally efficient and satisfactory way.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer) talked of the separation of the North of Scotland Hydro Electricity Board and the South of Scotland Electricity Board——

Mr. Palmer: I was referring not to that, but to the separation under, I think, the 1954 Act, of the South of Scotland organisation from the organisation for the rest of Great Britain, because the North of Scotland Board was always independent from 1943 onwards.

Dr. Mabon: I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me. The hon. Member for Worcestershire, South made the point of the separation of the two Scottish boards and how, in 1953 and 1955, he said in the House, long before the previous Government, either before or after the Mackenzie Report, had indicated that they might favour an amalgamation——

Sir G. Nabarro: I gave evidence before the Mackenzie Committee in Edinburgh. One of the points that I made to that Committee was that the viability of the two boards in Scotland would be enhanced, and that Scottish interests would be enhanced, if the boards were amalgamated.

Dr. Mabon: I will try, therefore, to separate the two points.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) rather surprised me by going completely against the policy of his own party when in office, when they saw the hiving off of the Scottish boards, with the result that in representing my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State here tonight I am speaking on behalf of the South of Scotland Board in the strict matter of responsibility. The hon. Member surprised me, because I always thought that this was a matter in which Scottish

Members were united. However, the hon. Member has always been a Maverick and, no doubt, will continue to behave so.
To take the two points separately—that is, the Hydro Board and its connection with the South of Scotland Board, and, for that matter, the connection of both boards with the general British position—I do not agree with the hon. Member for Cathcart that the South Board and the North Board do not enjoy advantages which they would enjoy if they were amalgamated on a Great Britain basis. I do not want to argue the case too much tonight and I will return to this presently.
When discussing the financial aspect, there is obviously a financial advantage to the Hydro Board, and, possibly to the Scottish Board, in relation to the present position which they would not enjoy if they were working on the same basis as that advanced by the hon. Member for Cathcart—that is, on the basis of a Great Britain amalgamation, with homogeneity of tariffs throughout and, of course, homogeneity of financial return also.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, Central pointed out that the South of Scotland Board, for various reasons which I can explain, has not met the financial target which has been set.
As to the internal Scottish position, it is quite true that in the years up to 1964 the co-operation between the two boards was not of that degree of desirability that we would have liked. I do not make a party point here; it is a question of the Fada-Fionn inquiry, the Mackenzie Committee and the disputes that resulted therefrom. Since coming to office and inheriting this position, we have tried very hard to get better co-operation between them.
We have done three very important things. We now have the fixing of a joint borrowing limit for the two boards, which is, perhaps, the first step in the right direction, and our progress has since been quite considerable. Last year the boards agreed to new arrangements for the exchange of power and the operation of generating plants. Generating capacity is now pooled, and operated jointly in the most efficient way. A joint generating account removes from the control engineers the continual need to consider each decision in the light of its effect


on their own boards finances. With the introduction of large new thermal stations in the South supplying pumping energy for pumped storage schemes in the North, close co-ordination of these two systems is obviously essential. By going beyond this to joint operation of the Scottish system, the boards have ensured that Scotland is receiving the cheapest and most efficient power available.
Joint operation, however, is not enough. Joint planning, which is the third point, of the means of generation, is equally important, and very relevant to these Orders. Here, again, the boards have undertaken a joint study to determine the best ways in which to meet the needs of Scotland as a whole. Their recommendations were contained in a joint report which they submitted to the Secretary of State early this year. No longer does the Secretary of State have the invidious task of deciding between the competing claims of the two boards for generating capacity. He now has a joint recommendation from both boards based on computer simulations of the whole Scottish system and carried out by the engineers of the two boards. While the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South may not have got all his way in the matter, these are very significant steps towards the goal he thinks is desirable.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: Will the report or the recommendations be published?

Dr. Mabon: I can reveal a number of points in my reply. The hon. Gentleman asked a lot of detail, and I will try to deal with as much as I can. The hon. Member for Worcestershire, South has given a good hint of how we could discuss this subject at another time, and there is another mechanism which the hon. Gentleman might use later in the parliamentary year.
The stations already under construction will meet the needs of the Scottish system up to 1972, and the recommendation of the boards is that this should be followed by a 1,200 megawatt advanced gas-cooled reactor nuclear station sited at Hunterston. As the Secretary of State has already informed the House, the South of Scotland Board has been authorised to proceed with obtaining tenders for such a station, and to put the statutory procedures in motion so that he may have

all the necessary information and be in a position to give his decision early next year. This is a serious matter. My right hon. Friend must have all the information before him before he makes a final decision, and obviously this preliminary step must be taken to make this assessment——

Earl of Dalkeith: Is this budgeted for in any way at all in the present sum of money for which we are being asked?

Dr. Mabon: I was about to say that of the £80 being sought, in addition to what we already have, part, in as much as it falls within the two years we are talking about, will cover this particular project if, of course, the Secretary of State agrees to go forward with it early next year.
In relation to the investment cuts, I confirm—because it is very relevant to this problem of generation and future possibilities—that, as my right hon. Friend said earlier about England and Wales, the cuts will not affect the generating programme and the construction of generating capacity for some years ahead. I cannot go further than what the hon. Gentleman learned earlier. It is not so much a question of how the cuts will affect Scotland, but I can give the assurance that it will not be the generating programme which will suffer.
I was asked for various details about the schemes and this is a very good opportunity to make a few comments. On Cruachan, I think that the scheme is going ahead reasonably well. No. 1 machine was damaged during tests, and is now under repair. No. 2 machine was commissioned early in 1966, and we hope that the remaining two machines, together with the other two, will be in operation this year. So far as Cockenzie is concerned, there was a failure of the boiler of the first set and the board is trying to bring forward the other sets to fill the temporary gap. It is hoped to start work on the first boiler at Longannet by the end of this year.
I must say a word about pumped storage. The fact is that this depends to a large extent on what the position will be at Hunterston, and until more nuclear stations are commissioned pumped storage would not be so economically sound a proposition as a nuclear station. Of course, some events depend


upon each other, but both boards are acting jointly. There is no conflict as there was on occasion in the past over priorities.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: Could we be told if this extra £80 millions involves the possibility of pump storage, for example, as at Loch Sloy?

Dr. Mabon: We have been prudent in asking for such a large sum in that, in the long term, there may be such a scheme. We are prudent in going to the limit which the Statute allows us. I am glad that we have the support of right hon. and hon. Members opposite in having taken on such responsibility and going as far as we can go.

Mr. A. Woodburn: Perhaps my hon. Friend has explained it, and I have missed it, but when Hunterston is so near Galloway, could there be pumped storage in Galloway as well as in the Highlands?

Dr. Mabon: That is for the board to decide. Both boards can comment on the position about that, but the plans at present do not involve this. I cannot say where in the order of priorities this might stand, but the board is concerned about Loch Sloy in relation to pumped storage; this will come after consideration of the Hunterston proposition.
I would like to return to the point raised by the hon. Member for Cathcart and my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, Central on the question of the financial position of both boards. The Scottish boards have been seriously affected by the prices standstill. The coal price increase, which came into effect on 1st April last, will cost the South of Scotland Board £4½ millions a year, and the tariff increase which was intended to recoup this and help put the Board's finances on a more satisfactory basis, had to be withdrawn when the standstill was announced. No proposal to increase tariffs had been announced by the North of Scotland Board, but in accordance with the undertaking given by them pending the fixing of a financial target, a similar increase in their tariffs might have been expected to follow the South. Until they can increase their income, the financial position of the two boards must remain a matter of concern.
In the meantime, the boards have been making every effort to reduce costs by improved efficiency and productivity and, in the long run, this enforced discipline must prove of value.
The hon. Member for Cathcart has referred to industrial consumption, but I would point out that when I spoke on 27th May last about the cost of living, I was speaking generally. So far as domestic consumption is concerned, electricity is cheaper in Scotland than anywhere in the British Isles, despite the high costs of transmission and distribution in sparsely populated areas. More than 98 per cent. of all potential consumers in the south and 93 per cent. in the north are connected to the supply, and the question of the position of both boards as a result of the prices and incomes standstill is being most carefully considered. The forthcoming White Paper on the next stage in the prices and incomes policy will undoubtedly take into account the position of the South of Scotland Electricity Board as well as the North of Scotland Board.
I do not think it is fair at this time to go into the performance of the Scottish boards, in relation to their financial targets, compared with the English boards, but I should welcome a later opportunity of commenting on the matter.
I turn to some of the points raised by the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South. A great many of his desiderata, as he rather modestly called them, are certainly desirable, though I do not say "all". However, I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Power, having heard the speech, will want to read more closely what the hon. Gentleman has said and see how far he can go in meeting his points.
The hon. Gentleman made the very fair point that we could be wrong in claiming that extending these borrowing powers will carry us to March, 1969, just as the comment has been made that it might be too much. I think it prudent that we should take into account the comment that the powers may not carry us this far. That is the reason for the importance of the review that my right hon. Friend is carrying out, and I hope that later on when things are clearer we shall be able to see the next stage in electricity development take into account


the very sensible points made by the hon. Gentleman.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Electricity (Borrowing Powers) Order, 1966, a draft of which was laid before this House on 18th October, be approved.
Electricity (Borrowing Powers) (Scotland) Order 1966 [draft laid before the House, 18th October], approved.—[Dr. Dickson Mabon.]

Orders of the Day — NATIONAL COAL BOARD (ADDITIONAL POWERS) [MONEY]

Resolution reported,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to confer on the National Coal Board certain powers with respect to petroleum within the meaning of the Petroleum (Production) Act 1934, it is expedient to authorise any increases in the sums which by or under any enactment are to be or may be issued out of the Consolidated Fund, raised by borrowing, or paid into the Exchequer which may result from the exercise by the Board of those powers.
Resolution agreed to.

Orders of the Day — ELLON HOSPITAL (CLOSURE)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Bishop.]

11.15 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Wolrige-Gordon: I rise to plead a solemn cause. The closure of Ellon Hospital to the many millions who have never heard of Ellon, let alone its hospital, may be a matter of small moment. But to the Ellon people it is their hospital; it is the place in which they were born; it is the place to which they look in sickness and sometimes even in health. It is the place to which in future they may have to look in vain. That is the solemn matter before the House tonight.
As befits a Conservative, I stand for progress. I think that change, and fundamental, basic change at that, is essential if mankind is to survive, but I never forget that progress depends upon what has gone before, that a tree will fall if one cuts its roots, however reasonable such action might appear, and that all the projected glories of the medical marvels to come in Aberdeen will never make up for the present reality that is Ellon Hospital.
The regional hospital board is in the position of a large monopoly able and willing to liquefy its assets in the interests of rationalisation and centralisation. People can make a very reasonable impression with such a policy. But it is an approach which I believe has already served to diminish the facilities and the morale of the National Health Service as a whole in this country, and, in general, I oppose it, first, because rationalisation excludes faith, and, second, because centralisation cuts out the people on the periphery, and they are every bit as important as the people at the centre. Taken together, the two ideas can lead to the wrong decision.
There is all the difference in the world between the approach which makes people want to cut down and then find all the attractive reasons for such action, which in the case of Ellon Hospital is not far to seek. There is, finance, staff, distance, pressure on resources, the climbing birthrate in Ellon, and so on. It is not always hard to find attractive reasons


for cutting down, but there is also an approach which is determined to use every every asset it has inherited to the full and which concentrates action, as can easily be done, on how to turn the reasons for a negative course into the opportunities for a positive policy.
Take as one example, expense. The regional board says that Ellon Hospital should be closed because it is too expensive to run, but that is never a convincing argument to ordinary citizens like a Member of Parliament, because there is always too much evidence of waste in other matters. What about in Ellon itself the idea, which I understand has been under consideration for some time, of spending £13,000 to provide a clinic for the district nurse without reference to the excellent surgery accommodation already provided through the initiative of local doctors? Thirteen thousand pounds would keep Ellon Hospital running for more than a year?
We are not impressed by the expense argument because by "expense" I think is really meant inconvenience. "Ellon does not fit in, it is not an easy part of a plan, so we shall close it and now let us think of all the good reasons, and of course expense is a good excuse." That is the rationalised, centralised approach which is threatening the existence of this excellent hospital. Not a thought about how to keep it open by running it more cheaply, no, because it is not the difficulties, it is the lack of thought and determination, not how to overcome those difficulties which has condemned Ellon Hospital so far tonight.
The decision to close this hospital seems so misguided that it opens a number of questions which I think should be answered. If the £12,000 which has been given as the cost of maintaining Ellon Hospital can be spent elsewhere so much better, where is that to happen? It is our Health Service and I think we ought to know. The renovation which the board says is so necessary and which, it says, would cost as much as £20,000 to £40,000—a very vague figure—I submit is rubbish. Even in the letter to me in which the Under-Secretary announced the closure, he could only specify narrow doorways, small bathrooms and w.c. compartments not suitable for patients who need assistance of a wheeled chair. It does not cost £20,000 to widen a

doorway. If the Under-Secretary would visit the hospital, he would know far better how excellent it is—an opinion which has been formed by many of the medical fraternity who have taken the opportunity to visit it.
Another reason in the Under-Secretary's letter was the awkwardness of Ellon Hospital for staff. That is what the administrators find hard. It does not fit the mechanical materialist world. I reject that argument even more flatly than the other, and I have most fortunately a most formidable ally on this in the regional board itself. Its own hospital plan gives very sound reasons for the retention of hospitals the size of Ellon Hospital. It already administers three hospitals in the same class, and one of them, at Insch, is almost identical with Ellon Hospital. The fact is that Ellon has always obtained staff all right. Experience is the proof.
Finally, the argument comes down to the fact that the trouble is the shortage of maternity and geriatric beds in Aberdeen itself. I sympathise with Aberdeen, and I hope that those shortages can be met. I can testify to the pressure on the hospital accommodation in Aberdeen. In Ellon Hospital only last week I met a couple of young ladies with a pair of spanking babies. Those mothers had had to go to Aberdeen for the birth and had had to leave hospital there the following day.
Those ladies were lucky. They were able to come back to Ellon Hospital. They will not be able to come back to it in the future. The board says to the Ellon mothers, "You will not have to go to Aberdeen. You will have to go to Fraserburgh, 26 miles away, or Peterhead, 17 miles away, or Inverurie, 11 miles away across narrow country roads". I will say to the board on the mothers' behalf that they do not want to go to Fraserburgh, or Peterhead, or Inverurie. If they cannot go to Ellon, Aberdeen is only 13 miles away, 25 minutes in a bus on a good main road. Their people can visit them there.
But the pressure on Aberdeen remains, and I cannot for the life of me see why Ellon's patients should have to travel to Aberdeen for hospital accommodation that is so little available while Aberdeen patients should not have to travel to Ellon for accommodation that is


available. Is it just that the predilections of Aberdeen patients seem so much more cogent than those of Ellon patients?
I wish to end with some solid alternatives for the Government's consideration. They could keep this hospital and forget the foolish idea of using it entirely for maternity. The number of patients does not warrant that, but it warrants a maternity unit in Ellon. Human beings are not an automatic production line. Sometimes there are a lot of babies, and then for a week or two there may be none. A bed occupancy percentage of, for example, 70 per cent. in Peterhead can bear no relation to times when expectant mothers must sleep in the corridors because there is no room in the wards. It can and does happen at Aberdeen, and it can happen anywhere. That may be the time when mothers from Ellon or the surrounding area, with its population of over 13,000, may want to have their babies as well.
Therefore the hospital must have a maternity unit, but it could be cut down with not 14 beds but five, and the other wing could be used for 10 geriatric or general purpose beds. If that is done, the only extra building that would be needed at Ellon Hospital would be a labour ward at the other end of the hospital from where it is now. It would simply be necessary to move the present equipment down into it.
I believe that it is very possible that Ellon builders and the town council and community would consider providing that addition by their own efforts. Peterhead won its maternity unit through its own determination to raise a large financial contribution. Ellon may have to seek to get its maternity services in the same way. I do not yet know if it will. The town council is to discuss this proposition tomorrow night, and it is not for me to say whether it will decide to do it.
If it does, that will remove the burden of capital expenditure on new building at Ellon of which the regional board seems so much afraid, and I very much hope that the Under-Secretary will bear that in mind if Ellon makes its decision to support this idea. I regard that solution as the most sensible of all. If that is cast out, then I ask at least that we keep the hospital for general purposes, which are so much less expensive to run. If

the Government's heart is still flint—which I can hardly believe—and nothing I have said is adequate to move them, then I beg them at least to keep the building. Ellon faces great expansion in the future. There are plans for at least 600 new houses, and my expectation is that they will be mainly for young couples, some, perhaps, going to work in Aberdeen, but all likely to have their families in the burgh.
I end by referring to a slightly different though related problem. We must now have an ambulance in the burgh, and the need will be all the greater if the hospital services are to go. All we can get at the moment, sometimes after long delays, naturally, is an ambulance from Peterhead. This can mean hours of waiting for Ellon sick and injured. Ellon will look after its own ambulance. I know that one is urgently needed in the burgh now. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will bear this need in mind as well as the real need in Ellon and the large area round about for the retention of the hospital.

11.31 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Brace Millan): To take the last matter first, the question of an ambulance, I shall look at the point which the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Wolrige-Gordon) makes and write to him on the subject of ambulance services in the area.
Turning to the main subject of the debate, the closure of Ellon Hospital, I understand very well that the closure of any hospital, particularly one in a small community which has served that community well, is a matter of considerable disappointment to the people living in the area. But it would be quite wrong to leave the impression, as, I think, the hon. Gentleman did, that the regional hospital board had not considered this matter very carefully. He knows, because he has been in correspondence with me and with my predecessor, that the matter has been considered very carefully over quite a long time. There is certainly no question of a hasty decision having been reached by the regional hospital board, and neither is there any question, as he seemed to suggest, that the regional board has taken a decision out of some kind of dogmatic belief that centralisation is absolutely necessary, that


small hospitals are awkward, and that they ought to be got rid of as quickly as possibly.
The hon. Gentleman spoke of three small hospitals—I think that he was referring to Aboyne, Torphins and Insch—but he did not seem to appreciate that the point he made destroys part of his argument, because the regional hospital board is maintaining those hospitals. This demonstrates that it has no rooted objection to small hospitals, but it, naturaly, looks at any particular hospital on its merits and according to the local circumstances.
The hon. Gentleman did not try to argue that Ellon Hospital is an economic proposition for maternity provision. He did not give any of the figures about the hospital and, to put matters in perspective, I ought to do so. The closure of Ellon Hospital is part of a general reorganisation of maternity services in Aberdeenshire.
At present, there are 82 general practitioner beds, which are sufficient to provide for over 2,000 patients a year. There are only about 1,500 births a year at these hospitals, and, taking into account the confinements which take place in the specialist hospital in Aberdeen, these births represented in 1965 97 per cent. of all births in the area. This is a very good figure indeed, and, compared with other parts of Scotland, an exceptionally fine one. So there is no question of the closure of this hospital reducing the level of provision in Aberdeenshire to unacceptable levels. That is not so at all. As I have said, this is part of the reorganisation of services. There have already been two small units at Rhynie and Fyvie closed, totalling nine beds, and, of course, there has been the provision of new units at two large centres which previously had none. These units are now in operation, at Peterhead, where there are 11 beds, and Inverurie, where there are 10 beds, and there are, as I think the hon. Gentleman knows, 12 beds at Fraserburgh.
So far as Ellon Hospital itself is concerned, the harsh fact is that the occupancy rate there has been very poor indeed, particularly since the provision of beds at Peterhead and Inverurie, and it has declined from about 70 per cent. a few years ago to an average of only

30 per cent. at the present time; in other words, on average only four beds out of 14 are occupied. I know that the hon. Gentleman is not terribly impressed by the economics of this, but I must quote the figures. The result of this fall in use of the hospital has meant that the cost per case has increased from £31 9s. 9d. in 1961–62 to £70 1s. 6d. in 1964–65. These figures are really quite alarming when one considers the general pressure on the hospital service.

Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: I interrupt just to say that those figures bear out the strength of the argument, that it would be advisable to reduce the hospital to a maternity unit of, say, five beds—the hon. Gentleman said four were fully occupied during the year—and use the others for general purposes.

Mr. Millan: I want to come to that in a moment. I want first of all to deal with the present position. Similarly, still dealing with this particular maternity point of view, I want to make the point again that there will be alternative facilities available in Peterhead and Inverurie. Although obviously it is less desirable to patients that they should have to travel, and obviously we would all like to have hospitals as nearly located to their homes as we can manage it, the distances are not, I think, great, and I certainly could not accept that there is going to be any considerable hardship involved, simply because there is no hospital full of maternity cases at Ellon itself.
The hon. Gentleman said, and has just repeated the point in that intervention just now, that of course, if all those units were not to be used exclusively for maternity cases there would be the possibility of using them partly for maternity and partly for something else, and I want to turn to that. The hon. Gentleman has said that the hospital is an excellent one, but I want to put it to him that the building—in two blocks—does not in fact conform to the modern standards of hospital design and layout, or of engineering services. The labour room, for example, is cramped. There are no day rooms, and none of the wards has provision for babies to be in the same room as the mothers. Ancillary buildings are adjacent at various levels on the site. There are problems with the heating system, and so on.


The reason why I make these points is that if the hospital were to be converted to any other purpose there would have to be quite considerable sums of capital expenditure involved. The hon. Gentleman is obviously a little sceptical of that. I can only wish that it were true that we could make alterations in even a small hospital at very small cost, but, unfortunately, our experience is that if these alterations have to be made they tend to be rather expensive jobs, and as for the conversion to geriatric use, I would estimate—I give the estimate, obviously, as a rough one—that it might cost something between £20,000 and £40,000.
The hon. Gentleman has mentioned that Ellon Town Council is likely to consider some propositions by which it might be possible for it to raise certain money itself, as happened some time ago in Peterhead.
Obviously, if the town council makes a decision in that sense we will listen to what it has to say but it is not just a question of capital expenditure. There is also the question of the expenditure in running the hospital. That is at the present time about £13,500 a year and, of course, if the hospital were fully occupied, with the geriatric, general medical patients and maternity beds continuing, the cost would go considerably beyond that and would have to be sustained year after year.
It is part of the function of a regional board to look at its resources and see whether it is using the money available to it, to the best advantage. The money is limited and the board would be failing in its duty if it did not try to use it to the best advantage. Money spent at Ellon would not be available for spending elsewhere.
It is the judgment of the board—a judgment with which my right hon. Friend and I concurred—that this money could be spent elsewhere to very much greater advantage than in continuing the hospital at Ellon. One of the propositions is that the hospital might be converted partly for maternity and partly for geriatric provision. I have already mentioned what would be involved in capital expenditure from this point of view, but it would not be sensible in

terms of the demand for geriatric accommodation in the board's area at the moment to spend this money at Ellon.
For example, the most acute need for additional geriatric accommodation is in Aberdeen City itself and next to that the Board considers that the priority would be in Morayshire. In neither of these circumstances does Ellon have such priorities. I repeat—if the money is spent in Ellon it is not available for spending at these other places where, in the judgment of the board, it could be very much better spent.
The same sort of considerations apply to any other suggested use of the Ellon Hospital. The board does not feel that the money spent there would be justified in view of the other demands on its resources.
It is naturally distressing that any hospital should be closed and, of course, such a decision is considered very seriously both at the level of the regional board and by the Secretary of State himself. This case was considered very seriously indeed. I am sorry that I do not feel, despite what the hon. Gentleman has said, that there is any prospect of reversal of this decision. We shall certainly listen to anything that the town council may say following its meeting tomorrow.
As the hon. Gentleman knows, the town council as well as other local authorities, the executive councils, G.Ps. and the rest, have already had the opportunity to make representations to the Board on this proposition and these representations and points of view were taken fully into consideration before the final decision was reached. I see that the hon. Member smiles at this. I know that he does not like the final decision but I take it that he is not suggesting that the Board was in any way neglectful of the process of consultation. I think that he will agree that the process was lengthy and exhaustive and that every interested body was fully consulted before the decision was taken.
In those circumstances, it is very unlikely that there can be any new factors introduced at this late stage which could possibly affect the decision which the regional hospital board has taken. I repeat that it is regrettable that this should have to be done, but if we are to


get the most effective use of the resources which we have for the National Health Service, as well as expansion in certain places inevitably in certain circumstances existing facilities will have to be discontinued. It is not something which is lightly done, but it is something which

is sometimes inevitable and in all the circumstances it must be inevitable in the case of Ellon.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at a quarter to Twelve o'clock.